talking about computers and design
by Ralph Grabowski

Oct 07, 2014

BIM consultant and reseller Microdesk is open for business in San Francisco, with their new office in the financial district. In their first Tech Talk Thursday, they invited potential customers -- and yours truly -– to show how UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles a.k.a. drones) can photograph nearby buildings, leading to 3D models.

Microdesk got its start in the Boston area 20 years ago, and now has 11 offices around the country. It sells its products and services mostly in the architecture and construction industry. Their newest office is in San Francisco office and houses eight employees.

Flying the Drone

Peter Marchese, who is Microdesk's 3D scanning ace, came from his Philadelphia location to fly the UAV overhead San Francisco – nearby and always within sight. During its time in the air, it took a few photos with its GoPro camera but not enough to make a model. In contrast, a previous project took 6,200 photos and about a day to process.

Models are stored as .rcp (recap) files. To view them, we would have to download a trial version of Autodesk’s ReCap, which, frankly, seems to me to be a little too much work. I await from Autodesk a lightweight RCP viewer.

Bargain 3D Modeling from Photographs

Peter gave a presentation to the 20 or so architects who were in attendance. He showed them, among other things, how camera-equipped drones might actually be employed. The photos are copied from the GoPro’s SD card, and then uploaded to Autodesk's cloud-based service, which, as if by magic, stitches the pictures together to make the 3D model.

Autodesk charges Microdesk just $5 per model, and doesn’t seems to care whether there are hundreds of pictures or thousands of them. In light of the massive amount of processing that must be done, the price seems quite a bargain. I am not sure, however, how long this price can last.

I suspect the process to make 3D models may be a lot more labor intensive than we are being led to believe. Each time I have seen it demonstrated, the demo jocks don't actually show me the process, except that days later they come back with a model. I am not a believer of miracles; I expect a lot of work transpired. But even if it does take a couple of people toiling away for hours, this is a remarkable time saving over the time it would take to make the model from other means: from a blank screen with computer modeling, or from a point cloud from a LIDAR scan.

The 3D model produced by the demo is not perfect, nor is the process very streamlined. It takes many photos to make a detailed model, and uploading them all to the cloud takes time. The resulting 3D model is not easily shared. It looks grainy. Parts of it near the edge are distorted. Black spots show missing details, and there are many of them. In other words, it's not exactly movie-quality imagery.

However, I get the sense that improvements will be forthcoming. Photogrammetry is simply too compelling a technology, its uses so varied, and its cost of entry too low, for it not to attract users, adherents, and investment. The cost of the hardware is minimal compared to alternatives. The UAV is essentially a radio-controlled aircraft, available in toy stores. The whole rig, plane and camera, costs less than $2K, says Marchese.

With this demo, Microdesk is positioning itself as a leader in photogrammetry services for AEC and civil applications.

Oct 01, 2014

With every major release of a CAD program comes a dilemma: how to convey all that information?

Solidworks 2015 is no exception; Dassault did its best to dumb down the changes -- there are literally thousands -- for the assembled press. As most of the press are not CAD users, the significance of most enhancements is lost upon us. For example, is the new Treehouse feature going to be a hit? I have no idea.

But Dassault missed a opportunity to trumpet one enhancement that would have resonated with all the media present. Say “3D printing,” and the Dassault folks would have stirred even the sleepiest oldtimer journalist in a post-meatball/calzone lunch-induced daze.

With Solidworks 2015, you can make 3D prints right from the menu. You have to have Windows 8.1. Microsoft had introduced a 3D printer driver way back in November, 2013 but neglected to mention that it was still up to software and hardware vendors to create drivers to make 3D objects actually appear.

"Solidworks 2015 is the first CAD vendor to come through on the 3D printing promise," says Aaron Kelly, product manager at Dassault. To show me how it was done, he was kind enough to wheel a Makerbot 3D printer. (The press had already started to file out.)

Sure enough, as Aaron clicks on the menu, the MakerBot printhead starts whizzing. The print volume is displayed in the Solidworks screen (see figure at left) as the MakerBot display showed it is printing a SLDPRT file -- the native part file of Solidworks. I figure the conversion to STL is either not happening or is invisible to the user.

I ask about support structures, which were not needed for the simple part being made. “The program creates support structures if needed," says Aaron -- as if by magic. Support structures are not displayed on the screen.

Currently, the Print to 3D command only works with MakerBot 3D printers.

Aug 19, 2014

Announced last January with little fanfare (Flow was mentioned in an Autodesk blog post in January, and then picked up the same day in TenLinks Daily), there never was an official press release back then, no phone calls or webinars for the media. Even Autodesk's own product site does not do Flow Design justice. Just another Autodesk Labs product done good.

The existence of a bona fide CFD (computer fluid dynamics) program for wind-tunnel simulation -- push-button easy and available at a rock-bottom price -- dropped like a bomb in the room of industry analysts and journalists at last week's media event. Our existence depends on knowing everything, but, well, we got caught flat-footed. A possible game changer, and we missed it!

How Much?

The fact that it is available for a steal, $210 a year, was by itself a shocker.

One industry analyst remarked that a low price reflects badly on the product. After all, a competitor’s product sells for $80,000. At 0.25% of the price, no one was going to take Flow seriously.

History

Based on CFD technology from the Blue Ridge Numerics acquisition, Autodesk’s easy flow simulation was first shown at Autodesk Labs under the name of Project Falcon, back in September, 2012. Today, Autodesk demonstrates the technology in its Gallery on San Francisco's Market Street. There you stand in front of a Xbox Kinect scanner, push a button, and in a few seconds, it shows you your 2D profile with colored streamlines moving over it -- for what that's worth.

A little more useful demo was when they had a bicycle where you could hone your aero tuck. (See this YouTube video.) Most of a bike rider’s energy on level ground is spent overcoming air resistance.

One Trick Pony

But I digress. Did I remember to say it takes only seconds to solve problems? More importantly, it takes no time to set up.

Watch airflow separation increase with speed over the back of a Porche with Audodesk Flow Design.

Flow takes shapes from a variety of objects, photographs, drawings, scans. If you are used to constructing painstakingly a mesh of volume elements, you now have a lot more time on your hands; with the speed and simplicity of Flow, you might consider a hobby -- or retirement, because you might be out of a job.

Oops: I got a bit carried away. Flow is not full-fledged CFD code. It handles only wind tunnels. And it makes a lot of assumptions. While air speed can be adjusted, an arbitrary speed is assigned initially.

But if you just got your boss to sign a purchase order for a new multiuser license for Fluent, Exa, COMSOL, and the like for who knows how many tens of thousands of dollars or Euros, you better have some pretty good answers as to just how is your favorite software so much better as he shows you what he can do on with Flow on his laptop.

How would a new structure affect wind patterns in London's financial districe? Even architects can now use CFD to find out.

The simulation group at Autodesk is keen on making Flow Design available not just to traditional users (mainly in aerospace and automotive) but also to other industries that Autodesk serves. Architects, not typically CFD users, and certainly not mandated to use high-end simulation software in school or in practice, would now be able to easily run air flow studies, such as the effect of wind around a new high rise.

Aug 16, 2014

Autodesk this week made it quite clear that they are serious about simulation. At a small press event, they revealed Nastran-based products:

One is a standalone FEA [finite element analysis] solver, called Autodesk Nastran.

The other is in-CAD, which will work inside Inventor and in SOLIDWORKS.

The products are a result of Autodesk's acquistion of NEi Nastran. It would have been news delivered with a thunderclap -- if it had not already leaked earlier in mid-May. It seems NEi resellers admitted to seeing interest by Autodesk, which was misinterpreted by reports as Autodesk-only NEi Nastran code. A few weeks later, Autodesk was forced to reply in a blog post, but then only partially substantiated the acquisition.

And so it was on an uncharacteristically hot day (90 degrees in Portland!), Autodesk assembled a half-dozen simulation-savvy but befuddled analysts and journalists to its Lake Oswego offices for the official announcement. Autodesk had indeed purchased the entire company.

The acquisition cost was not revealed. NEi employees (numbering in "double digits") are now Autodesk employees. NEi will continue to operate in their Westminster, California offices -- not far from archrival MSC Software. NEi founder CEO David Weinberg was not seen at the media event, although I was told he is still with the group, and was very active during the four months it took to create in-CAD for Inventor.

More importantly, Autodesk enters the big leagues of CAE, such is the cachet of Nastran. With the acquisition of NEi comes customers of high-end FEA software, something Autodesk may had trouble acquiring on its own. NEi uses a hybrid direct/reseller sales network, which Autodesk will take over.

(Nastran is one of the classic FEA solvers, in use by every major aerospace firm, big auto, big enterprise -- and those who wish they were. Originally developed as a NASA project, it was picked up by a number of private companies and amde commercial. MSC Software is currently the leading incarnation of Nastran with MSC.Nastran, both in terms of market share and robustness. NEi may be in the top five.)

Though a general purpose solver, NEi has tried to build a reputation for composite material analysis for aerospace (ridiculously more complicated to analyze than homegenous isotropic materials, such as metals) and non-linear analysis (a specialized area in which materials get wierd like with viscoelastic materials such as rubber and certain plastics, or even ordinary materials when taken to extremes in temperature or load.)

Autodesk assured the skeptics among us that it will continue to support and develop in-CAD for SOLIDWORKS, which was previously named NEiWorks. Autodesk Nastran products will sell for "around $10K."

Jul 14, 2014

(Updated to reflect that free SketchUp was never licensed for commerical use.) How do you tell the largest CAD user base in the world that they they are going to cut off? You don't. SketchUp, known and loved by millions, was revised late last year. There was the usual list of improvements, a name change, but most significantly, it is not free for commercial use.

The FAQs issued with Trimble's announcement of SketchUp Make (a new name for what was commonly referred to as "free SketchUp") is this statement:

SketchUp Make is the new name for our basic version. It’s available today and still free to use. With this change, we’re also clarifying that SketchUp Make is not licensed for commercial work.

This means all architects using SketchUp may be in violation of the license agreement. It is easy to overlook. Trimble, who has owned SketchUp for two years, only said this in a May 22 press release:

In addition to serving the commercial market with SketchUp Pro, Trimble will continue to provide a free, entry-level, 3D drawing tool-- now named SketchUp Make.

Free use of the the current release of SketchUp is confined to students, hobbyists... makers, for which the product is named -- so long as they don't actually ever sell their creations.

Oh, and the price of Pro now goes up from $500 to $590.

Biggest CAD User Base

SketchUp has grown to become, almost by accident and under all radar, the most-used CAD software in the world. It is, by CAD standards, ridiculously easy to use. Being free helped. Trimble says it has 38 million users.

Created initially for architectural conceptualizations in 3D, it was readily adopted for all sorts of 3D design by anyone and everyone not already mired in "professional" CAD software packages, which then, lo and behold, attained a user base an order of magnitude larger. It was quite a feat for an upstart and showed no respect for the established order.

Professionals criticized SketchUp for its imprecision and impurity. It was not "exact," not a solid modeller, it was not robust, "you cannot document a big project," and it wasn't a "real professional CAD application" -- meaning it was not expensive, as if free is a liability.

SketchUp filled a vital need and so grew to the have the biggest CAD user base in the world.

Trimble Needs to Make Money

Google acquired @Last, the original creators of SketchUp, to populate Google Earth with man-made objects, like buildings and towns. Google cared little about making money from a CAD product and gave it away. Google may have received a little money from users who paid $500 for SketchUp Pro, a drop in Google's big bucket.

When they found people actually cared less about creating buildings and structures than they hoped, the company seemed to lose interest, selling it to Trimble, a company known on a lesser scale than Google (both in revenue and project size).

But for Trimble, SketchUp is an opportunity to cash in on the now ubiquitous user base.

Let's Not Make a Big Deal of It

The removal of free commercial use from SketchUp achieved barely a ripple. Trimble itself is hardly promoting the change. Even the "official" SketchUp forums have little protest. The few bloggers who posted about the change received a handful of comments. See About SketchUp 2013 and the Meaning of "Free" by Stefan Boeykens on CAD, BIM and 3D.

So while Trimble is not breaking down doors with BSA Enforcers brandishing EULAs as is the way of big software, I wonder how long this will last. Trimble may be content with an honor system only for now.

"They'll get quite a bit of money from firms that have to stay on the up and up," explains an exhibitor at the recent AIA convention, who hopes to capitalize upon stranded SketchUp users.

Enjoy it While You Can

Only one architect I spoke to (out of of over 20 polled for this article) say his firm will be upgrading to SketchUp Pro.

Several others were careful to say they will use SketchUp only in early, conceptual modeling and not for customer deliverables. Is that legal? It's hard to say. One part of the license of SketchUp Make says if you are not selling, renting, leasing or lending the output of SketchUp, it's OK, but then quickly insists you have to get a SketchUp Pro license if you work for a for-profit organization of any kind.

For the other architects and mechanical users who continue to to use SketchUp for business, the future is bleak. Trimble is letting everyone stay on a less-than-latest version, if they have it. This appears to the path of least resistance for most SketchUp users, though over time they will find themselves increasingly isolated as SketchUp moves forward with more updates.

Trimble will not be fixing or enhancing anything but the most recent version. Soon sources of downloads for free-for-commercial versions will dry up -- if they haven't already. Those users may soon not be able to read files made with a current version. A future OS upgrade may render their free version totally unusable.

Jul 08, 2014

What if making architectural models was easy, fun, cheap -- and clean? What if it they came in kits with pieces you can snap together, pieces that may actually resemble architectural elements like walls, floor and roof panels, roof trusses, columns, and windows? What if models would come together without explanation, training, or weeks and months of waiting? What if your kid could make them, as easy as building blocks?

Snap together your next architectural model with a kit from Arckit. Adhesive backed patterns are applied to plain building panels to get color and patterns. I know: why hasn't some one thought of this? Damien Murtagh did. An architect himself, Damien founded Arckit so that others would be free to explore a design in its physical form without even so much as computer -- or Lego bricks. Arckit may not provide the detail of a professionally-crafted laser-cut model, but you have to admit it is way more accessible, intuitive, and cheaper than doing it yourself. There's really nothing in this level of modeling in terms of cost and detail.

Waiting for 3D Printing?

Besotted with technology as I am, I have no doubt imagining 3D computer models turning into 3D prints, though the reality will be a rude awakening. 3D printing can be time consuming. One 3D print vendor says it takes 35-40 hours to process a luxury home CAD model for 3D printing. It's messy with chemicals to clean up. And raw materials are expensive.

In contrast, Arckit is available in three sizes:

A60 (60 sq meters, or 650 sq ft of floor area) for $165

A120 (120 sq meters, or 1292 sq ft) for $315

A240 (240 sq meters, or 5283 sq ft) for $499

Based in Ireland, Damien is quite excited about introducing Arckit in the US and so is giving 10% off the prices listed for a few more days and including shipping.

To avoid the bland look of monochrome 3D printed models, Arckit provides several downloadable surface textures and material patterns you can print on self-adhesive sheets, supplied with each kit that you can stick on your model.

Now, an enterprising architect can probably make use of any of the texture maps libraries available, scale the pattern to the 1:48 scale Arckit uses, and then print out their own sheets.

Jun 30, 2014

Quite often, companies pay for journalists to attend their events by covering all the costs. This has most journalists jumping for joy: it's one of the perks of being part of the press. There are not a lot of journalists who work for publications with a travel and expense budget, and few journalists could ever see faroff exotic locales on their own.

So if we can get airfare, hotels (usually a nice, downtown, business-class hotel), and meals (sometimes at the best restaurants in town) -- and be the envy of friends and family. Even hang around at the bar and get the tab picked up. We jump at the opportunity. In return, the companies get some coverage. It's an unwritten rule ...until recently.

Sometimes, I just can't find a unique angle that I think will interest anyone. And so I was notified that I would not be welcome at an upcoming big bash held by a CAD company annually. I had been to their last big bash, but wrote nothing about it. Nothing. Not a d*mn word. And so I had not met "expectations." Finally, it was in writing.

I don't question the decision. There was a pretty good chance that I might have gone again and still not found anything worthy of note.

Or, this time I might have taken the opportunity to get to know the company and its products better, using that information as "background" (journalist-speak for involvement not directly resulting in articles).

Or, I might used the trip to further business relationships.

Or, I might faithfully transcribe the keynote speeches, rehash the material presented to each of us, painstakingly and carefully prepared for me by a diligent PR team who has worked hard to provide press releases, product information, even graphics and captions, bios of the execs and case histories.

Some of this material is ready-to-use. I could do a cut-and-paste article, with little thought of my own. But there are journalists who are better at this than I am, and I could always refer to their work.

Rules for Free TripsThere are could be many who strive to see the world at the expense of companies who seek only immediate favorable coverage. I thought I'd take the opportunity to write out some of the unwritten rules. There's not many of them, and they are very simple.

Basically, you behave like a good guest, don't write anything bad or critical while you are there, and then send a warm "thank-you note" in the form of a complimentary article about the company and its products disguised as a report from the field to your readers.

Tweet like mad. It doesn't matter if your followers can't keep up with your hundred tweets during an event and may likely unfollow you. What matters to companies is that they have PR staff who counting the tweets. They know who the top tweeters are, and so you need to let them know that you are industriously and frantically covering their show.

Pay particular attention to the wit and wisdom dispensed by the top executives. Companies trot out their top executives at these events, so shouldn't they be well-photographed and -quoted? They have scripted and rehearsed, honed their points, put their entire company on-message, and practiced their jokes.

(How would you feel if you did all that and the paid guests (journalists) wrote nothing? If you have been given an interview, don't think for a minute that the CAD exec has been reading your stuff or is delighted to finally meet you. In his mind, he deigned to give you some of his valuable time and that had better turn into something that makes him look good.

Follow up with a longer article, or series of articles after the event, and if the event is expensive enough (i.e., you have been flown across oceans), then you had better keep up the coverage all year long so that when they plan their next event, you will be on their mind. Also, be receptive to press releases, company events, etc. There should be nothing, no matter how trivial, that you should ignore from such a generous host.

Following these simple rules will guarantee that you will be invited to future events.

Jun 12, 2014

HP's large format printer division is based in Barcelona, but their print heads are made in San Diego. The software may well be written in Oregon, and their PR firm is headquartered in Atlanta -- an arrangement that favors frequent flyer miles for most involved, and jet lag. A large contingent was on hand in San Diego, actually looking none too worse for the wear, to introduce a couple of new large format printers.

The two new large-format printers hulked on the sides of the stage as the Western Hemisphere press filed into the ballroom of the Sheraton Marina Hotel in San Diego. But as the music built up, as the curtains parted, and a spotlight tracked the star of the show: it moved forward by itself to center stage. Enter the pagewide large-format printer! May be not as dramatic an entrance as Gene Simmons at a Kiss concert, but in our world, that's as good as it gets. We applauded.

Plans for Invasion

It is the first large format (40"-wide) printer with PageWide printhead. Whereas a normal printhead goes back and forth across the page, a PageWide printhead is a collection of sideways stackable printheads that cover the whole width of the sheet. (See Figure 1.) All colors are dispensed at once. It's way faster than the back and forth, multiple pass method. Print registration should be spot-on (pun intended) since the paper doesn't have much chance to slip on the rollers.

Figure 1: HP designed its new printhead as a 6" module that can be stacked to create "any" size of printer

While the other two printers had notable improvements (the T3500 can output a D-size print in 21 seconds!), HP has big plans for this battleship-class printer. It intends to displace the current LED technologies in repro houses. HP sees this as a $1.3B market. Same speed or faster... plus color! How could they not love it, HP asks rhetorically. Perhaps because they'll be bound to HP for expensive ink?

Users in Ink Prison?

HP insists that their total cost of ownership is still low, even with their proprietary inks. It's a widely held belief that printer companies lose money on the hardware but profit immensely from ink cartridges. It's certainly true for consumer printers. I have been shocked at paying $40 for probably an ounce of ink.

From the second row of seating, I can see the cartridges of the large-format printers: each looks like it holds a half gallon. While engineering and AEC prints are usually E-size maximum, HP is counting on the creation of huge signs and banners, which are increasing popular.

The page-wide printer will not be available until late 2015, more that a year away. HP says the technology is all there, but they want to do enough testing to ensure that it meets their reliability standards. They are announcing their plans early to send a message to the repro shops, that something better will be coming down down the road eventually, so don't enter into any long-term relationships.

May 23, 2014

The CAD world expected a lot from SpaceClaim: a promising startup founded in 2005 by none other than Mike Payne, whose previous companies -- PTC and SolidWorks -- forever changed mechanical design.

SpaceClaim, the product, looked good. It was easy to use, and with direct modeling being the trending topic in MCAD, it seemed to be in the right place at the right time. On the product side, CAD insiders gave it a thumbs up. Despite all its promise, however, it failed to take the world by storm.

Some would say it faltered out of the gate:

Its subscription pricing came was ahead of the times, and was eventually abandoned for conventional perpetual licensing.

Then it proved to be difficult to unseat SolidWorks and Pro/Engineer users. SpaceClaim's "adjacent seat" tactic really meant that customers had to to have two CAD systems -- one more than the number CAD users want.

Then SpaceClaim became a front end to CAE software. Then a front end to CAM systems. Even to ECAD systems.

Then maybe users would want to use it to convert files from one CAD system to another, or to use it as a super viewer of CAD data...

The tactics seemed to vary with the weather.

Co-founder Leaves

As late as December of last year, SpaceClaim claimed to have 40,000 seats. Not bad. But not enough to change the big picture. Even perennial contender Solid Edge had risen to an order of magnitude larger.

It doesn't look good when a co-founder leaves for a day job with another company in the same space -- which is what Blake Coulter did in early 2013 when he surfaced at GrabCAD.

Marketing had been lackluster, consisting mostly of co-founder Blake Coulter tirelessly tweeting and talking his online friends into reviews of the product, plus the occasional press release about key customer wins. Bernie Buelow, VP of Marketing left not long after Blake. The position remained unfilled.

ANSYS the White Knight

Then ANSYS buys SpaceClaim. $85 million may seem like a lot of dough at first, but compare this to what Dassault paid for SolidWorks, over $310 million 17 years ago. At the time SolidWorks had only 6,000 installed seats. That's a price of over 3.6 times as much as SpaceClaim, for less than one-sixth the number of seats.

Was it the channel? CAD insiders say Dassault bought SolidWorks for the reseller channel they had set up. But also, SolidWorks was already perceived as a company on the rise.

SpaceClaim was already in bed with ANSYS. SpaceClaim had signed up with ANSYS as their modeling front-end. It made sense, as modeling was hardly the strength of CAE programs, whereas it is a SpaceClaim specialty. But why buy a capability you already have access to? And why pay $85 million for it? I doubt it would be justifiable in savings of license fees.

An Answer to Autodesk

The answer to why ANSYS bought SpaceClaim may have more to do with Autodesk's actions of late. Autodesk, mostly a CAD company, has been buying up CAE companies to the tune of $300million. CAE companies collectively have shrugged this off. They seemed content, almost complacent, in failing to notice rising temperatures, making excuses for inactions: What does a CAD company know about analysis? Who would believe them? Their channel cannot support it. Not like us, who know what we are doing. We have real solutions. Our results are precise. We have PhDs writing our software. And PhDs using it. What does Autodesk have?

Such encroachment did not go unnoticed by CAE market leader ANSYS, who saw Autodesk enjoying an unopposed march deep into its homeland. If Autodesk was going to buy up companies in the CAE space, well, ANSYS could buy up a company in the CAD space. Just as Autodesk could hope to migrate their CAD users to their newly acquired CAE tools, why couldn't ANSYS buy CAD users to convert them to ANSYS? Two can play this game.

The CAD users most likely to be interested in what ANSYS offers are MCAD users, many of them are already mechanical engineers, in which case their education would have involved FEA and other analysis tools. No doubt ANSYS went shopping for MCAD users -- and had to look no further than SpaceClaim, a company they had already partnered with.

May 15, 2014

Solid Edge is clearly trying to look like a big CAD company at its third straight Solid Edge University, its annual user meeting and conference which takes place over three full days this year in Atlanta GA.

The event borrows its name from Autodesk University, the mother of all CAD events, where 10,000 users and 200 exhibitors are the norm. Solid Edge University had a few less of each: a little over 400 attendees and may be a dozen exhibitors. A hundred of the attendees were Siemens employees (Siemens owns Solid Edge) and another 50 or so may have been from third-party vendors and 40 or so from the media.

It's not as if Solid Edge didn't try. Many Solid Edge employees were tasked with cajoling users from their workstations and into Atlanta, but in the end, the city proved to be not near enough to so many users, says one employee. Last year's venue in Cincinnati, though a smaller city, attracted a few more, quite possibly due to its proximity to manufacturing.

Still, Solid Edge University was a million-dollar event that can scale up to a bigger audience (wherever the next one might be). This year, there was the big stage, inspirational speakers, interesting classes, a special event (you can't go wrong with a brewery tour) -- and plenty of staff to attend to every need of the media.

Did We Miss Something?

According to Siemens, the user base exists for larger Solid Edge Universities. We heard there are over 500,000 Solid Edge licenses sold, a number that seemed to immediately send the analysts into a huddle. Did we miss something here? The last we heard, numbers of seats of Solid Edge were low enough that we could ignore them. But half-a-million suddenly puts Siemens PLM in the same ball park as market leader Solidworks.

This year there were also more press, analysts, and bloggerd. There was even a blogger event the night before (though both Ralph Grabowski and I arrived too late to attend).

Though relatively small compared to more established CAD user events, the fact that Solid Edge University even exists is testament to the will of GM and Senior VP, Karsten Newbury. Now in his sixth year in charge of Solid Edge, Karsten has been able to create a separate community for his users, balancing the tight control exerted by parent company Siemens AG with a need to establish a separate identity for a populist CAD product.

For example, changing a font on a product page on the website can be like "moving heaven and earth," says one Solid Edge employee. Yet, Karsten has been successful in many ways. For example, Solid Edge presenters on stage wore jeans -- in sharp contrast to black suits commonly found at Siemens events.

Apr 29, 2014

The best 3D scan devices are made with PrimeSense hardware. PrimeSense was bought by Apple in a $345-million deal in November, 2013. One person not happy with this deal is Amir Rubin, ceo of Paracosm [the word refers to detailed but imaginary worlds you create inside you mind], who may be speaking on behalf of the community of startup firms intent on using 3D scanning for engineering and architectural applications.

Amir's company used PrimeSense hardware to create 3D models of building interiors from scan data. "Here was the best cheap scanner you could get, and Apple has bought it, and made it inaccessible for everyone else. They even shut down the Web site."

The primsesense.com Web site as it appears today

"Primesense nailed the tradeoff of cost vesus performance," he says "There aren't any viable, sub-$30,000 alternatives for acquiring 3D structural data readily available on the market. You can't get that kind of scan quality from point and shoot cameras. You have to have a laser, an infrared laser. Photogrammetry [ie, 3D models from photos] gives no scale. That building is going to be the same size as this candle holder," he says, pointing to the candle holder on our table during closing night's open bar at COFES.

The Primesense 3D scanner, while it was still available

"Every one is upset." Amir's company has managed, by hook and by crook, to stockpile a couple hundred PrimeSense devices. He seems to think the patented technology of PrimeSense prevents another company from making anything as good, as accurate, and as cheap.

Who is PrimeSense?

PrimeSense makes the Capri, which is a 3D-imaging signal processor on a chip. It is used in the $399 Sense handheld scanner sold by 3D Systems. How the Apple acquisition of PrimeSense affects the future of the Sense product is not known at this point.

(Similar hardware was developed by Canesta, which was bought by Microsoft in 2010 for use in their Kinect gaming system. The acquisition cost was not disclosed, but Canesta had raised $60M from investors before Microsoft bought it. Microsoft is no stranger to billion dollar deals; it paid $1.4B for Visio in 2000.)

The Capri chip was discovered during a teardown of Google's much anticipated "Project Tango" smartphone, where it would power its 3D imaging capability.

A scan processed by Paracosm's software

The Stakes Are Too High for CAD Vendors

This is a pity for Autodesk, who is trying to get into 3D scanning in a big way with its ReCap software. With promising technology being gobbled up by tech giants at hyperinflated prices, what are CAD companies to do? Even the biggest CAD companies barely make $3 billion a year. One of the biggest deals in CAD -- Dassault buying Solidworks in 1997 for $316 million -- was smaller than Apple's PrimeSense acquisition. It's possible that Autodesk was in the running for PrimeSense, but it's likely that Autodesk would have folded early as the stakes climbed.

It sucks to watch sky high deals being made for gamers and for watching television. (Apple won't say, but rumors are that it bought PrimeSense for a remote control of its media box.) This leaves serious technology applications -- from Paracosm to ReCap -- out in the cold.

While the tech titans can afford to pay billions for toys they must have tomorrow, it is the CAD companies that have the tools and the time to put something together. Most technical professionals don't know they need 3D scanning right now. We have six months, a year, maybe more before demand builds up.

Why not throw a skunkworks design team together? A couple of engineers ought to do it. Tell them to put something together. Or how about sponsoring a maker contest? Sensors, IR [infrared] transmitters, even microprocessors are stuff of Radio Shack. All that's need is an infrared beam emitted and detected, with the direction and the difference in time used to give the position. The hardware is cheap: the Leap Motion device does that for $80. Then the rest of the magic is done in the software.

How hard can this be? And who better than CAD companies to do software -- and have design tools? Maybe this is a chance for CAD companies to actually make something, practice what they have been preaching. It beats crying in your beer about those Big Bad Tech Giants.

Apr 04, 2014

GRAPHISOFT chose Tokyo to announce BIM Cloud, a cloud based collaboration, storage service targeted for architects and the construction industry. Why would a company based in Hungary, with its biggest customer base in Europe, pick Japan for a product launch? It turns out that Japan has been a big success for Graphisoft.

Spring blooms near Japanese temple. We have cherry blossom forecasts, says Graphisoft's Tatsuro Kawai, who lives in Tokyo.

Bence Kovacs, general manager and VP of Asia

“Graphisoft is used by 4 of the top 5 AEC firms in Japan,” says Viktor Várkonyi, CEO of Graphisoft, who is determined to spread this sort of success into the rest of Asia.

Graphisoft admits its acceptance of Archicad software by big AEC firms in Japan is a bit of an anomaly. Though it has less than 15% of the market share in the US, where Autodesk and Revit enjoy a secure and significant lead, Japan is quite the opposite.

What has made this so? A longstanding commitment, an attention to customer needs and, very importantly, a Japanese emphasis on merit over marketing, says Victor. Autodesk may have a bigger marketing budget, but the Japanese refuse to be swayed, focusing instead on whether the software can do the job.

Graphisoft is indeed the envy of other CAD companies, confirms one CAD insider. They're entrenched; bigger CAD companies have left Japan disappointed. Grpahisoft adapted its software to the needs of Japanese industry.

Bence Kovacs, general manager and VP of Asia, left his native Hungary 14 years ago to head an all-Japanese 20-person team that includes developers in Tokyo’s Akasaka district -- an area known for its corporate demeanour by day and its bars and restaurants by night. More on that later.

Architecture firm Nikken Sekkei designed the Tokyo Sky Tree

Architecture firm Nikken Sekkei, famous for the design of is the world's second tallest structure, the Tokyo Sky Tree and probably the single iconic image of Tokyo’s skyline, has been one such firm and faithful Graphisoft customer. Nikken mandates BIM for its 1200 architects and is trying to spread the gospel of BIM to other firms with whom it does businessh. Despite acceptance of BIM among the big Japanese firms, the small and midsize firms still rely on 2D – and AutoCAD.

“But it is a top-down culture,” says the hopeful Bence. “The smaller companies will look to see what the big companies are doing.”

Feb 20, 2014

David Heller, 72, founder of IBSystems and creator of “Café” sites like MCADcafe and AECcafe has started a new PR firm, HTS Creative. HTS (short for "Hi Tech Success") is scheduled to begin operation March, 2014.

IB Systems ownership has been transferred to long time employees Sanjay Gangal and Nitai Fraenkel. Jeff Rowe, frequent contributor for MCADCafé and CADinsider, says he expects “business as usual.”

HTS Creative will emphasize “success stories,” but in a modern format that makes good use of video. “We plan on being a full service creative agency," adds David.

He has already created a prototype electronic magazine for the AEC market. “E-mags and custom e-mags are only part of it. Video, plus all forms of writing and production services that support marketing in the high-tech engineering field .... MCAD, AEC, EDA, etc. Examples include product reviews, success stories and case studies, technical articles, marketing writing, etc.”

Joining David will be daughter Ruthie, 22, who is graduating college with a major in marketing and communications. “She’s an expert in social media and how it's applied to industry,” says proud dad.

SolidCAM has already enlisted David and HTS Creative to create video featuring one of their star customers. David can be reached at his new email address david.heller@htscreative.com.

Well, we have too many public relations firms in our industry. And with the reach of the Internet, I suggest that PR is not needed at all, anymore.

But, on the other hand, who knows PR better than editors and publishers, who are on the receiving end of press releases and marketing gimmicks. And so people like Mr Heller are best positioned to advise firms on how to market themselves. We know from decades of experience that which works, and which does not.

Dec 06, 2013

Autodesk has come out strong in favor of online CAD and cloud technology. Many new apps announced here at Autodesk Universtiy 2013 are browser-based, requiring online acces. In the press Q&A session, both CEO Carl Bass and CTO Jeff Kowalski rolled over any opposition to online apps and cloud technology.

In response to Autodesk's adamant stance on online sharing and collaboration, a press member from Argentina explained, "We don't like to share."

Another from India added, "Only 6% of us are online."

Suddenly with those six words, the world that we in the USA take for granted -- 24/7 broadband access, smart phone always in hand, iPads at the airport, one step from having our toasters text us when the toast is ready -- collapsed to its true size.

That's nearly a billion people right there in India who can't see our modern picture. Add to this most of Africa, the rest of Asia, and Latin America. You have the majority of humans who are a long way off from having the online tools and toys we take for granted.

Do tech execs dismiss them as irrelevant? I feel ashamed.

Aren't those countries the growth markets we are always going on about? Don't we pat themselves on the back for sending them baby incubators made from car parts, or low emission high-tech cooking stoves so everyone in the mud hut doesn't die of respiratory failure? We drop coins in the beggar's cup, but we think no more of him when we clink our wine glasses together.

Consider the plight of Rwanda. Landlocked with uncooperative neighbors and denied access to Internet submarine cables (which is how most of the world gets access), it has to rely on expensive satellite signals, which are split in so many parts that the few available connections are spotty. A technical school only a hour's drive from the country's capital has been trying to get Internet connection for years.

The privileged few that set the tech policy really ought to get out more.

And helping design is just getting started. Let's make things, they say. But in a new way. Let's make what you (the consumer) wants to make, be it a copy of a sculpture you like, some furniture, something frivolous, a replacement for the knob that broke off your oven...

The company with its overabundance of design tools seemed to be itching to help the entire population hold in its hands whatever may have popped into its head, but was lacking the design-engineering-manufacturing-financial skills-resources expertise.

No worries: Autodesk was going to make it happen. Mass customization. The very democratization of creation. It had to be simple enough for any person off the street. Autodesk would just have to buy a 3D printing company, right?

On November 6, Autodesk announced it would be buying Delcam, old school CAM at its finest. Picture metal shavings on shop floors, and skilled machinists running hulking metal cutting machines. Delcam is a market leader in mainstream CAM.

Even with the fanciest multi-axis CNC set up, the state of the art in subtractive machining, is basically the way things were always made. Metal maybe have given way to plastic. More parts today are made from composites for which no surface machining is required.

But the latest generation doesn't even want-need any of that. They want to hit a button, and see the part come out.

Even five years ago, it would have surprised no one if Big CAD bought Big CAM. But today, different ways of making things has all of us in rapt attention: 3D printing everything from guns to livers is capturing the public's attention, and advancements show promise of 3D printing in real manufacturing.

Dec 04, 2013

Autodesk buying Delcam is the biggest news in the CAD, CAM and CAE world since… umm… the CAD, CAM, and CAE worlds existed. Yet, at this late date, 25 days after the announcement, I am amazed how scant has been the coverage of an event of such magnitude.

Wake up, guys!

The #1 CAD company [Editor's note: Autodesk no longer is #1, as measured by revenue] buys the #1 CAM company. Autodesk, who used to irreverently claim to have designed everything God did not (their words, not mine) can now also say they can manufacture it. What was once a fractured CAM industry with several key players but none a 800-lb gorilla, is now changed forever. Autodesk has validated Delcam as the one CAM company to deal with.

A Long Time Coming

CAD insiders have long amused themselves and irritated CAD executives with the idea of a conjoined CAD/CAM company: "Why not buy a CAM company?" "Why not have a design of a part lead directly to the finished product on a CNC machine, all with 2D, without paper drawings, without data conversion, without one software hand off to another, suffering data loss or extra labor or confusion?" "What could be more natural?"

But every time we suggested it to the CAD executives, we were met with, “We already have partnered with several solutions in our third-party applications.” Sure enough, all mainstream MCAD vendors, Autodesk and SolidWorks especially, had all of the major CAM vendors as partners. After years of listening to this, we actually were convinced that CAD vendors were best served allowing every CAM vendor equal access. A CAD company buying a CAM company would just upset the apple cart.

It Had to Be Carl

A source in Autodesk says this deal was two years in the making. It is the second-biggest acquisition Autodesk has ever made (second only to Discreet).

Unverified as it may be, it would be hard to convince me that a major CAM acquisition was any thing less than a Carl Bass mandate. The Autodesk CEO has overstated his belief that design is only one part of the process. A furniture designer by hobby and a self-professed “maker,” Carl cannot be satisfied in leaving a concept in electrons. No, it must be something one can produce, to feel, to hold in one’s hands.

A Juggernaut

Already a market leader in CAD, Autodesk is now a total CAD, CAM, and CAE company. Its $500-million in CAE companies and technology acquisitions over the last couple of years have bought it some measure of credibility in the CAE world. Buying a market leader in CAM give Autodesk instant credibility as a CAM leader.

Add to this Autodesk’s moves into cloud technology, PLM, a variety of far-reaching and exciting innovations out of Autodesk Labs, and you have the stage for an unbeatable force in the CAD, CAM, and CAE world.

Nov 15, 2013

I love listening to Bernard Charles. I might be a sucker for the thick French accent. Or is it his delivery? The Dassault CEO gives a big smile after every sentence. He must be friendly in person, though I've never met him.

Bernard Charles (standing), CEO of Dassault Systemes, and the dashing Monica Menghini (in blue), EVP of Dassault marketing are trying very hard to explain 3DEXPERIENCE to the press at Dassault's annual American gathering of users. They've been at it for over a year. (See previous coverage.)

The Smartest People in the Room

Are they just too smart, their concepts too advanced?

"3DEXPERIENCE is a platform. V6 is an architecture," Chalres explains.

Huh? Us CAD guys are used to connecting functions to software: design with CATIA; analyze with SIMULIA. Like that. But these guys are trying to raise us to a new level.

From the back of the room, I see pens in mid-air. Normally, we're a dutiful crowd, busy with our pens, recording it all. But words are failing us now. Then, finally, some gather their courage to question, to try to bring the talk down a level we can all get. But Charles and Monica remain undaunted. Their higher ideals are not to be brought down to the mundane, this product for this purpose, for this price. I do amire people with ideals.

I try to get some CAD insiders to dumb it down for me, but they seem equally befuddled. And one is actually a whip-smart young dude, so it's not my advanced years blocking new ideas. Whew!

One or two of the analysts (these guys are paid to know a thing or two -- unlike us press types) do attempt to give me an interpretation of Charles's wisdom. But they differ on the meaning.

Dassault's posters of cars with wings and icebergs pulled across oceans

There must be an explanation. I wend my way to the show floor, past posters of icebergs pulled across oceans and cars with wings, which only further my sense of not getting it. Some of those product guys must be able to tell me what this "3D EXPERIENCE" is.

Refuge in CATIA

I go for the heart of the matter, the CATIA booth. I know CATIA, what it does, who uses it, and for what. If there is one product Dassault is known for, it's CATIA. I get CATIA. I'll ground myself there and then see if 3DEXPERIENCE can be explained from that vantage point.

But what I see on the screens at the booth appears to show two cars in motion, looking something like systems modeling. Oh, no they've changed CATIA! It's hopeless.

Erik Bolognini, Sr Technical Sales Specialist for Dassault, is a CAD guy but able to explain 3DEXPERIENCE. Finally.

The show floor is serving as a reception, with food and drink is in wide supply. Erik Bolognini is not having any of it. I sense this guy is serious.

"We're showing a simulation of the cruise control," says Erik. The software shows how a car can sense another in front of it and then adjust its speed. Very cool, but it's not CATIA. No, it's Dynmola used for system engineering. CATIA is a modeler. And the interface blurs the lines.

An automotive engineer can go from CATIA to Dymola seamlessly. In fact, there is other software they can use, too, including SolidWorks. Dassault will package the design, analysis, and system software together. The automotive engineer can get all their needs met, have a good experience...ohhhhh! A 3DEXPERIENCE.

So the 3DExperience is really a package of software? Erik nods. Oh, for gods sake. Why don't they just say that? I can handle packages and bundles.

I can't help but ask, "How much for the automotive 3DExperience?" Erik, Sr Technical Sales Specialist, can't tell me. I guess there is still some knowledge just out of reach of mere mortals, even Erik.

Oct 07, 2013

The best 3D interface to CAD product is one that is not yet created. Imagine, if you would, waving your hands in front of you to control an assembly, zooming in and out, moving part in and out, etc. without reaching for your mouse or using the keyboard.

Half the size of a deck of cards, the Leap Motion Conroller detecting finger and hand movement

Enter the Leap Motion Controller. A box half the size of deck of cards sits unobtrusively on the table and it is programmed to detect hands and fingers and their motion. Incredibly precise (the literature claims it has an accuracy of 1/100 of a millimeter!), it makes the Kinect box (the current choice in popular 3D scanning) seem like old news.

I used the Leap Motion Controller during an Autodesk Design Night to lift plates off a human skull. I didn't have to hold a stylus (as with the zSpace device or the Leonar3Do "bird.") I could have been holding a scalpel, though. LEAP people tell me it can detect instruments I am holding. This might be technology that's too good for CAD users. It could save lives. A $79 box, the proper interface, a robotic arm and a brain surgeon in the Mayo Clinic could operate on... well, anyone and anywhere.

While medical applications and CAD seem like the obvious missed market opportunities, the Leap Motion guys seems to be going for the other end of the spectrum with aiming for the mass market, proud of selling in Best Buy with games and simple drawing and paint programs.

I ask about Autodesk applications using it, and the only one so far is Maya. Others like Inventor, Revit, and Civil3D would benefit from such a natural 3D interface, but I get the impression that nothing is in the works.

I guess there's more money with popular applications, even though it is a buck or two at time.

Jul 01, 2013

Here among the AEC software giants whose towering booths are metaphors for the huge buildings they
will help create, is Aaron Dietzen in a 10'x10' space showing off his
little gem of an application. It does nothing more than make one of
the giants (SketchUp) a little easier to use. Make that "a lot
easier to use," if you are extending walls, making roofs, adding windows,
and so on.

BuildEdge makes a roof on a SketchUp model in no time flat

Aaron
shows me how BuildEdge moves a wall in SketchUp by dragging
it; the adjoining walls stay with the wall that moves. This is because
BuildEdge treats walls as enitities, whereas SketchUp's own walls are
merely lines and surfaces. You may be used to dragging walls with your AEC
software, but SketchUp users have to reconnect walls manually; every change involves clean up.

As architects are all about billable hours, a few minutes saved from each wall move more than pays for BuildEdge, as it costs a
mere $29!
But there's more.

BuildEdge brings more heavy-duty architectural
software tricks into the SketchUp realm. For instance, windows dimensioned from an edge keep their distance.

Making roofs is a cinch
with BuildEdge. Aaron shows me a house with eight walls, and then BAM! A roof
pops up on it. It looks nice, with several peaks, edges, and even shingles.
Sure, I've seen that done in Revit and ArchiCAD, but SketchUp
users had to create all that manually. Me, it would have taken hours.

But can it change the pitch of any part of the roof? Aaron does it
in a wink. Even before I can ask to change a sloped roof to a gable, he does
it for me. Seriously, why isn't every SketchUp user doing buildings using BuildEdge?

BuildEdge is a plug in for SketchUp. Commands are accessed from a small menu window after you install the program. It works with both the free version of SketchUp and the professional version.

A trial version with limited capability available on th BuildEdge site. There are versions for Windows and Mac. For more information, go to www.buildedge.com.

Jun 11, 2013

Canon is a company we know best for fine cameras (and less so for the purchase of OCE and their large-format printers). It seems, however, less intent on seeing things as they really are, but rather how you wish they were. With its MREAL virtual reality system, they can show NX models inside an existing, real world environment.

Here at the Siemens PLM Connection 2013 exhibit hall, I enter this virtual reality world with my hand in front of me. The cameras detects my position, and the display shows the model with with my hand on it; I virtually handle the part inside the real world.

How is this not what we have seen before? and referred to as "VR" or "AR" (virtual or augmented reality)? I had just come from the zSpace booth down the isle, where I wore only a clip-on over my glasses to see virtual models. The Canon head gear seems bulky and excessive. I am told it's still better than other VR head-mounted displays, which cut off the rest of the world; I think of deep diving helmets. I can see enough with MREAL to not trip over the furniture. And it has to be far less of an investment than a full blown CAVE (cave automatic virtual environment).

Canon's MREAL lets users interact with their NX model at Siemens Connect in Dallas. Rubber glove help isolate hand from surroundings but will not be needed.

MREAL has been available for nine moths for NX. A CATIA version is due soon. Shown here for manufacturing use with NX, the MREAL could also be used in architecture, museums, and safety training. Canon mentions oil rigs. (Now that they mention it, it would certainly be nice to to run through an evacuation tunnel in a virtual oil rig rather than a real oil rig with flames licking my butt. But I'm not sure how I can use MREAL on the run, as wires seem to tether the system to a computer, but let us continue.)

In what appears to be a attempt to establish itself in virtual reality, Canon will "work with you" to rather than quote a price for the system. "We're more interested in getting some good case studies, says Peter Johnson of Canon. The MREAL system was first used internally by Canon themselves to design their own products, but now Canon must have realized that they could actually sell it to others.

Jun 10, 2013

In the war between the two superpowers of CAD graphics AMD and nVidia, AMD's FirePro has scored a major victory over NVIDIA's Quadro for the PTC Creo crowd -- according to AMD spokesman Antoine Reymond.

I'm at the opening of a PTC user event. Openings of big CAD user meetings are usually an excuse to eat and drink. Held in the exposition hall with the hopes of uniting users with vendors and their products and services, most users are instead occupied with the free chicken quesadillas, cheeseburger sliders, crab cakes, and more. Most wander from food station to food station, having a free beer along the way; a few stations have wine. Drink coupons were included with registration, although press were denied. (Do we have that reputation?)

But the ever-alert Antoine is not swayed by temptation. He flags me down to show me a leapfrog in performance over their archrival. This was an opportunity he could not squander. It was a story that must be told. No matter that it was Miller time, a Sunday night, on a show floor that was about to close.

But I am happy to oblige. What is more fun than covering a good fight? NVIDIA, the marketing heavyweight, has been outspending AMD to promote its superiority in the battle for the CAD workstation. But here is Antoine telling me that his Firpro W7000 is up to 17 times faster than the nVidia Quadro K4000, specifically in GPU-accelerated transparency mode. His colleague, Jon Clark, quickly adds that other modes are also substantially improved.

To prove it, AMD shows otherwise identical PTC Creo v2.0 systems side by side. Sure enough, the AMD system does appear to meto be a bit smoother with fewer glitches as it rotates Creo models. The technical advantage AMD seems to have attained is not without some intrigue. Antoine tells me that PTC allowed AMD exclusive access for one full year. It's the only way they could have gained such a clear advantage.

Oh, boy. I can't wait to get over to get to the nVidia booth tomorrow!

Jun 05, 2013

SolidWorks-Catia conversions have been the source of much consternation among users, most of whom don't understand how two programs owned by the same company (Dassault Systemes) won't talk to each other.

CAD blogger Josh Mings has reported on Dassault's CATIA-to-SolidWorks converter that costs $3,000 upfront, plus another $1,000/year for maintenance. I couldn't find it on Dassault's site or SolidWorks' site, but I should not be surprised. It's not something that Dassault is likely to promote, maybe for fear that it will cause a mass migration to the cheaper product (SolidWorks).

Into the void come a few companies offering the much needed conversion, either with expensive off-the-shelf software (can Elysium really charge $10,000?), or cheapo apps by little known companies that will probably waste your time, or data translation specialists who offer to customize a solution (you can imagine what that might cost!).

But in a most unlikely place -- the annual gathering of NX and TeamCenter users in Dallas, TX --the solution to the SolidWorks-Catia interoperability conundrum presents itself when I pay a visit to the CCE booth.

CCE is a heavyweight in the interoperability arena. They have a labs site from which they are determined to give away software. It's like Autodesk Labs, though on a smaller scale; in fact, there are only four products available: two are CAD viewers, one of which handles large assemblies.

But most important is a bidirectional SolidWorks-Catia translator in 32- and 64-bit versions. It's free. You do have to log in using Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, or Twitter so that CCE ends up with a way to contact you, but isn't this a small price to pay for solving a longtime source of frustration -- or as an alternative to pricey or shady alternatives?

May 27, 2013

The line to get into Maker
Faire is a mile long. Spread out
over the San Mateo Fairgrounds, just south of San Francisco, this show
expects 120,000 people over the next two days. Some of the halls will be
so packed by later this afternoon that I will not be able to get from
one end to the other.

The last big show before Maker Faire I went to was Comdex. The
biggest CAD show I go to is Autodesk University, but AU pales by
comparison as it cannot summon even 10,000 attendees. I’m certainly not the only CAD insider trying to figure this
out. Exhibiting at this show are Autodesk, Trimble (SketchUp), NVIDIA… and a
host of 3D printing vendors.

Could this maker
movement be the next phenomenon? And is there money to be made selling
to all these
makers?

Dale Dougherty, founder of Make: magazine and the wildly successful Maker Faire, introduces a speaker during the press event

As I survey the sprawl of exhibits, how to tap into the maker market
may not be very clear. As varied as it is big, Maker Faire is at first
glance a loose collection of disparate movements, trends, arts,
and crafts. Among mechanical
fire breathing contraptions (the Burning Man crowd is well represented),
there is also produce from inner city gardens, robot kits that promise on-time meds, to
Chinese grandmas, aerial farm drones, and a hundred products from science
fairs.

From these
minds of whimsical artists, two things seem clear to me:

Everybody is making something

Everybody is young

Maker displays are often wildly creative, such as this huge draw at Maker Faire Bay Area

Making something invariably
involves materials and resources. With the numbers Maker Faire can
produce, it was only a matter of time before corporate America came a-knocking.
Not just CAD companies, but insurance companies; Intel making music;
Radio Shack just signed a big
partnership; and more.

Young makers may be spending their allowances
or their parent’s money and the artists their welfare checks, but that’s
still more than
the average bear. I hear the typical maker manages to spend $1800 a
year. Quick
SWAG [scientific wild-ass guess]: Maker Faire claims a total audience of almost a million. Let’s
suppose that
9 of 10 makers are too busy tinkering, soldering, sewing, or cooking to
even
show (that’s very conservative), and so we can estimate the total spend of
the
makers to be about $10 billion!

Some of this has to be on design software. Of course capturing the young
hearts could only produce greater dividend over time. Successful
tinkerers and inventors mature over time, increasing their buying power
and influence. Get them while they are young, right?

May 06, 2013

In the wake of the GstarCAD8 launch last month in Beijing, to which three of us western journalists were invited, I reflect on the chances of success of a Chinese CAD company in the US and world market.

GstarCAD8 was launched with sufficient fanfare. There were pretty girls, bright lights, a big stage. As more CAD companies are choosing to soft-launch major releases from behind WebEx screens, this did make us sit up and take notice. One might read a lot into their willingness to fly three Western industry journalists half way across the world to see the unveiling.

We listened through translator headphones as company executives extolled the product’s technical prowess, as well as to their deliberate, longterm campaign that over the years sought to establish Gstarsoft first as a regional CAD product, then as an international tool of choice.

Can they do it? We are only too well aware to what China has done to us with manufacturing. Can they do it with software?

Guess what: Your software is probably already made in China – and India. I cannot think of a major CAD vendor that does not have a development team in China or India [or Russia] – or use Chinese or Indian labor on its home soil. A CAE vendor once told me that almost all of its developers were in two distinct groups, one from China, one from India. That was 20 years ago. The world has only got flatter since.

Still, to hear one Chinese company extolling their CAD product is not enough to convince me that it will rule the CAD world. GstarCAD has only about 400 employees [Autodek has 7,500]. It is funded privately, and not by the vast concerted might of the country itself. Autodesk and other CAD companies can exhale.

There are signs, however, of a national directive for China to establish itself as a major player among software vendors. At the GstarCAD8 launch, president of GstarCAD Ky Xiang told us, "China will be the software center of the world."

Clearly, China is no longer content to be bridesmaid, earning pennies for factory, sweatshop, and cubicle labor while it sees US stockholders pocket the big bucks. This has to hurt. God help our current CAD market leaders should China ever get its act together. Even current heavyweight Autodesk would be knocked clear out of the ring if that happens.

May 02, 2013

Autodesk, the heavyweight champion of the world, is about to take on a contender. This one’s from China. Gstarsoft invited me to their 3rd annual conference in Beijing where, with great fanfare, introduced their contender GstarCAD 8.

Being virtually unknown outside of China (80% of its sales) did not deter GstarCAD from laying out its plans for world domination, a confidence inspired by the success of Chinese manufacturers and a hope that this will somehow translate to the software. GstarCAD resellers were on hand to point to the inevitability of the business software market caving in to the just-as-good-for-a-lot-less philosophy China is adept at capitalizing on. Why would anyone in their right mind spend $4,000 for AutoCAD, when they can do everything with GstarCAD --for only hundreds of dollars?

It is a familiar refrain for CAD insiders. We’ve heard contenders, foreign and domestic, proclaiming that they will be the ones to knock out Autodesk out of the ring. Remember DataCAD, TurboCAD, VersaCAD, Ashlar Vellum...? IntelliCAD and all the AutoCAD clones it spawned? Even Draftsight, which is propped up by CAD heavyweight Dassault, is unlikely to do much damage. But none seemed to even have slowed Autodesk. Autodesk gets bigger and stronger every year. With annual revenue of billions, profits of hundreds of millions and a seeming endless number of 2D users only too willing to convert to its vertical applications, Autodesk is indeed in an enviable position. Bentley, a long way back in the #2 spot with MicroStation, has about a quarter of Autodesk’s revenue.

One might dismiss previous contenders as lightweights, but can you ignore China? China’s will and weight of numbers is sufficient to frighten established market leaders – in any market. The list of big American manufacturing industries that have suffered from Chinese competition is long. Can China’s success in manufacturing be duplicated with software? To aspiring Chinese contenders, Autodesk’s success represent a huge target, no different than a Chinese factory undercutting a domestic manufacturer of doorknobs, underwear, cameras, dog food, computers...and almost anything else you can think of. China has proven it can rule in making all sorts of physical and consumer goods. Almost the same, for a lot less. It works. We’ve all bought into it.

But here is CAD software selling for thousands of dollars. It makes no sense to the Chinese. It’s vexing that it has continued so long. Artificially priced, as opposed to value priced, like diamonds. Ready to cave in, they’re sure, like all the other industries.

It’s only going to take perseverance, some sustained pressure and patience.

Apr 23, 2013

Civil engineering firms work on the grandest scale. pushing back the sea, building dams, bridges, highways. Tristram Carfrae, structural engineer, director and Arup Fellow and keynote at Smart Geometry 2013, is used to overcoming the vast forces of nature. Carfrae and his firm, Arup, have built many big projects, including tall buildings, bridges, the Birds Nest Stadium and the Water Cube for the Beijing 2008 Olympic and plenty more. He is accustomed to moving heaven and earth. But when came up against a frog, he had to back down.

The diminutive green and golden bell frog (litoria aure) was endangered, and lived where Arup was digging for bridge.

The Kurilpa Bridge in Brisbane, Australia. (picture courtesy of Arup)

The distinguished and accomplished Carfrae admits to being "out of phase" here at Smartgeometry, where a decidely more youthful crowd forms clusters to build structures which can resemble modern art and playful experiments without immediate practical application. But Carfrae’s use of digital tools are lesson to all, especially in simulation. He is able to combine aesthetics with the practical… and deliver results.

One of his creations is in Brisbane, Australia, a cable-stayed bridge like no other, is as likely to invite criticism as it is praise. “I love that it has a polarizing effect,” says says Carfrae. What might appear as a random jumble of rods actually is. A spreadsheet produced random numbers which determined the length of each supporting rod. All in one shot. "We liked it, and left it alone.”

The Helix Bridge, Singapore (image courtesy of Arup)

But Carfrae really let the computers hammer away during the digital simulation of a high rise office building that employed twisted columns. It took millions of iterations to get the columns to twist yet still be able to sustain wind and structural loads. The tower was grown one floor at a time, each time satisfying structural criteria, until all floors were created. After 20 towers were declared okay by the computer, the final design selection was based on aesthetics – by humans.

But it was another aquatic creature that almost stymied Carfrae once again. This time, fish. He was pitching a bridge in Singapore. The design was inspired by a Malaysian fish net. A local touch sure to be appreciated, right?

“Mr. Carefrae, what makes you think Singaporeans would like to get to get caught in your net?,” he was asked. He was also getting vibes that Singaporeans and Malays were not exactly friends. It seems that Singapore, a city state of 5 million, maybe be the most modern of Asian cities, was cautious of its more backward neighbors. in fact, the bridge was over a body of fresh water source, meant to reduce Singapore reliance on Malaysia.

Changing gears, Arup looked into a spiral construction, but a spiral is not structural, something easily observable with a Slinky, which droops easily when its ends are pulled apart. But combine that with an opposing Slinky and connect them? Simulation validated the design. But the maintenance cost would go way up, unless the bridge was built with stainless steel.

“What would that add to the project?," the customer wanted to know.

“$15 million.”

The Singaporeans didn’t blink. They were already in love with the design. The double helix would link Singapore forever to biotechnology, a business they were chasing, and one with a ridiculously high economic potential. Singapore was already in love with the design. The double helix would link Singapore forever to biotechnology, a business they were chasing, and one with a ridiculously high economic potential.

Jan 22, 2013

If you had been freaking out about what Dassault might be doing to your beloved SolidWorks, you would probably be reassured here at SolidWorks World 2013.

The Vision From Solidworks World 2012

At last year's event, SolidWorks newly appointed vp of R&D Gian Paulo Bassi stated that SolidWorks future lay in two versions, each relying on different kernels: one would be the tried-and-true Parasolid, upon which SolidWorks has been based since its inception. The other would be CATIA's CGM kernel.

Though meant to be reassuring at the time and an answer to FUD* campaigns from competitors, all indications pointed to CGM being the kernel of choice for the future. After all, CGM was owned by the Dassault "family," whereas Parasolid was owned by a competitor.

But with the new CGM engine would come data incompatibility with models developed by Parasolid, and who knows what else? Can you rip out the engine from a Mustang and replace it with one from a Camaro? This led to uncertainty among users, and Bassi's statement may have even shaken their faith.

The Word from Solidworks World 2013

Though the show has already wrapped up its first day, there has been little mention of SolidWorks V6, as the CGM version of SolidWorks is known. In fact, there has been little mention of anything by Gian Paulo. After being very much the highly visible champion of SolidWorks V6, he did not even take the stage -- not the main stage nor gone up front with the other executives during the media Q&A.

Could it be that plans for SolidWorks V6 have been shelved?

At the risk of reading too much from the tea leaves, consider that V6 technology has been rolled out only into Mechanical Conceptual shown during the first morning on the main stage. It is underwhelming in its ability: a front-end to SolidWorks, rather than a robust stand-alone modeler; far from finished, not released 'til Fall. It seems to be -- at least so far -- SolidWorks' big announcement.

But sometimes, what is not said is just as important as what is not said. No shakeup. None of the "it's good for you, now open wide" stance. A gentle roll out. Mechanical Conceptual is a tool; use it alongside your beloved SolidWorks, not instead of it.

Maybe what we are seeing now, is a kinder, gentler Dassault. Or maybe one that listens.

Jan 21, 2013

SolidWorks announced its customer portal, my.SolidWorks.com, as it kicks off its annual user meeting.

Currently in beta, and open to all (go to my.solidworks.com), it is mostly an aggregation of content previously found on SolidWorks websites, or published by select SolidWorks VARs, like FISHER/UNITECH, which is often supplies good tutorials for SolidWorks users. In addition, it has case histories, even a tweet or two. Some items are several months old so you may have seem them already. I see the most prolific SolidWorks employees (Marie Planchard, Greg Jankowski, Matt West) are well represented.

According to SolidWorks, content is just a start, as the plan is to provide a common interface to a host of offerings: articles, customer service, support... and probably targeted sales messages.

Clearly, a site like this would be most useful if could be customized per the interest of the individual user, such as what Amazon does by rearranging its "storefront" each time I enter, suggesting things I might like to buy. Knowing a user is in the automotive industry should place automotive content front and center, and not bother the user with case histories from electronic companies, or medical products, for example.

My.SolidWorks is also meant to be be customized, as are most "My" sites, though I'll have to take their word for it. I tried to log in, but could not, as it recognized me as previous user. An account long forgotten, I'm sure, but trying to regenerate a new password was also unsuccessful. Oh, that's beta sites for you! I'll try again, soon.

Anyway, could you not find all this content already on the www.solidworks.com site, I ask? SolidWorks says the search is much better. My.SolidWorks.com is built on Exalead, the French search engine purchased years ago by Dassault. Virtually unknown in the US, the acquisition had most CAD insiders scratching their heads as to what the CAD company was up to. Apparently, it has found some use among at least one of its divisions. My.SolidWorks.com also used the NetVibes technology, another head scratcher.

Dec 07, 2012

There were 84 of us media types that assembled in the historic Grand Hotel Karsnapolksy in central Amsterdam, where amidst the picturesque canals, "coffee" shops, and a surprising proliferation of Argentinean steak houses, we heard all about how well Bentley is doing.

The event started with a Media Day. We were showered with product news (over 20 press briefs and releases), news of the acquisition of two companies, financial status (record revenue of $523M), and forward thinking strategy with lots of attention to mobile devices.

(The rest of the event was devoted to finalists in the Be Inspired contest, culminating in a formal dinner and announcement of the winners. This event is invitation only, for press but mostly for elite customers whose work would be judged exemplary, or would in some way inspire. The more democratic Be Together conference is for all users, closer to Bentley's headquarters, and in Philadelphia this May.)

Only after I dug myself out from under the news was I able to pay attention. I heard a lot about Bentley going mobile, both in terms of mobile devices and data mobility. Presenters were not only showing the mandatory iPad, but also Android devices -- and the brand new Microsoft Surface.

I was curious. I understand that Bentley must support Microsoft and whatever it might come up with -- even the hateful ribbon interface, and now the Surface -- but the Bentley employee demoing the Surface seemed none too thrilled. We agreed the keypad was a bit awkward. He had no difficulty in learning how to use its screen and mostly ignored the keypad which came with the device. He had adjusted to typing on the iPad, but now he was having trouble learning to do the same with Surface.

Bentley even a hired Wired editor to regale us about mobile and Internet at all levels and places in the world -- from its role at the Olympics, where unforeseen heavy use shut down the network, and to the social unrest in Kenya. And let us not forget Arab Spring.

With so much attention being paid to mobile, on stage and in the hallways, plus showing products that were still months away from release just to increase the mobile buzz, I had to ask if Bentley was getting carried away: "Was Bentley throwing everything it had in development of apps for mobile devices, and in the process ignoring the desktop use that was its bread and butter?" After all, most of Bentley users still do work on desktops; most content is created and processed on desktops. Aren't these mobile devices just eye candy?

I sought the Bhupinder Singh, Bentley's level-headed SVP, who is responsible of overall product strategy. Bhupinder explained to me that, No, Bentley still had its feet on the ground, and was quite respectful of its desktop apps.

Bentley is moving forward on the mobilization of data. Bhupinder reiterated what Greg Bentley mentioned, that the production of data was the domain of the desktop, but increasingly the consumption of data needed to be on mobile devices.

For example, once a public agency owns the plans for an infrastructure project, they could be made available to the public -- and for commercial projects. Bentley acquired InspecTech, which gets data from bridge inspections and provides it customers -- although for security concerns the data is not publicly available.

For wide access to data, Bentley would provide servers. Conversion software (such as its i-model technology) on the servers would allow data to be consumed in Revit, MicroStation, or something else. It should all just work. Truly mobile data; no data in silos.

This might work for public data, which is captured at the expense of the public. However, wouldn't this leave vast blank areas with no access to data or areas of private data created by private companies? For example, a LIDAR scan is done of a shopping center; the owner might have no interest in making its data available to others, even for the common good.

(The exception is a big one. Google has provided considerable data for anybody and everybody in the form of Google Earth. But Google can afford the largesse. It makes billions of dollars of profit. A thousand vehicles with multi-lense cameras to ply every paved road? No problem. CAD companies just aren't that size.)

But since I regularly hear about how Bentley it is at the root of every major infrastructure project in the world, I press on. Bhupinder senses where I'm going with this. Of course, Bentley is hardly the size of Google. It cannot behave like a charitable concern, like Google is. It has to make money.

But why not have Bentley act as the broker of the data its customers own? It is in an ideal position to do so. The terabytes of point clouds of processing plants. the BIM data... even whole cities, dams, bridges, water treatment plants... and more. Collectively, it would be a vast amount of useful data.

Instead of it being stored and archived in private solos (Greg Bentley calls this data mortality), here is a chance for Bentley to play a part in making the data available and useful, making itself the data steward for the world's infrastructure data. Granted, Bentley cannot do this all for free, but who could fault them for charging a small brokerage fee, as it were, in effect, to create a marketplace for companies to gain income from data it has already created.

Nov 11, 2012

Dassault Systemes has identified so many industries it means to conquer that it seems to me like a plan for world domination. Here are some of the industries mentioned at the 3DExperience conference:

Architecture and construction

Energy

Apparel and fashion

Medical

Mining

Banking

There were more, but my head was starting to spin. To say it is an ambitious plan is an understatement. Each industry already has its entrenched leaders, with known and respected industry expertise. What would the maker of CATIA know about fashion, for example? Sure it can show me the next Boeing jet on airport runways, but can it simulate the spring collection on models as they sashay down Paris runways?

Dassault CEO Bernard Charles does not seem to be bothered by such considerations. Dassault Systemes has its roots in Dassault, the aircraft company, from which it was a small step to the design facilities of Boeing, Airbus… just about every major aerospace company, commercial or military.

If you allow yourself to think of cars as airplanes without wings, you can see how success in aerospace would have translated into the automotive market. As engineers hold airplanes and cars as the finest examples of their craft, Dassault products next got a warm welcome from many manufacturing companies.

But what of AEC, where the Dassault brand has little cachet?

How can Dassault establish credibility in so many diverse industries, in which its aerospace and automotive pedigree matters not, where nobody knows about CATIA, or may never have heard about Dassault fighter planes?

Dassault Mines for Credibility

With the recent Gemcom acquisition, CEO Bernard Charles gave a hint of how he hopes Dassault will achieve credibility as he targets new industries.

CATIA and SolidWorks were probably in use for the design of earth mining machinery. But what of the geologic analysis, the planning, management of the mines, etc.? Dassault was only scratching the surface [ha ha, get it?].

Dassault solved this problem by going out and buying the mining software market leader, Gemcom (its product is renamed GEOVIA by the time you read this). Gemcom was such a force to be reckoned with, that mining terms are named after the founder of the company, according to Bernard. Everyone in mining knows Gemcom, like everyone in airplanes knows CATIA. With this acquisition, Dassault bought itself instant credibility.

Can Dassault keep buying market leading software? The company reports $1.6 billion of cash and cash equivalents. It could buy four more companies the size of Gemcom outright.

Still, miners don’t know the Dassault name. But that is slated to change. Dassault is targeting corporate name recognition from the high vantage of national advertising campaigns (remember the iceberg commercial), along with a marketing maverick.

If Gemcom serves as an example, look for Dassault to try to achieve market penetration and leadership by buying industry leading software while at the same time increasing its name recognition to the world at large.

Impressing the public, which includes stockholders, other approvers, as well as targeted industries. Why not establish the idea that that Dassault is a huge company with a world vision, one that acts with the whole world in mind? This two-pronged approach, which relies on establishing name familiarity, would be vital in preventing skeptics from asking “Who the heck is Dassault. Don’t they make software that designs airplanes?”

Instead, they would remember a company that is good, green, benign, friendly, smiling… a personification of Bernard Charles himself, intent on saving the world – and, incidentaly, a comany you can count on to do your job.

Nov 09, 2012

This morning, we heard Bernard Charles, CEO of Dassault Systemes, reveal that he took a 2-3 month break from his duties as CEO. This may have allowed him to contemplate the world, as well as Dassault’s place in it.

He seems to have come down from the mountain with nothing less than a coalescing vision of mankind and technology, parts of which have already spread throughout Dassault divisions. One cannot enter Dassault’s North American headquarters without seeing emblazoned on the doors,

“IF WE... ask the right questions, we can change the world”

He is trying to share his wisdom with us from the stage, but is kind enough to break it down into digestible chunks. We hear about “harmonizing nature, products, and life.” There already had been high-minded messages going out to the public in national ad campaigns, including the iceberg commercial, where a town is created from the desert by towing an iceberg to it.

If you are wondering what all this has to do with CAD, CAM, and CAE, you are not alone. CAD, CAM, and CAE are still in the picture, but under “3D” in the Dassault compass.Then there’s been the acquisitions of companies whose products seem to be as central to Dassault’s core competencies as Pluto is to the Sun:

Exalead, a French search engine

NetVibes, an online brand monitoring tool

CAD insiders could make no sense of it. It was just too out-of-the-box. But, I think we were just too small minded. Clearly, Dassault is aiming for much more than the CAD, CAM, and CAE industry. Just how much more is becoming clearer at this conference.

Nov 07, 2012

PTC announced their quarterly results last week. No matter how financial news is framed in a press release sent to us, our news service is trained to distill three key items to formulate the headline:

Revenue

Change in revenue

Profit

I'm not a financial analyst, but I hold profit as the most important parameter of a business. It's the bottom line. Checking over the PTC press release, I see the revenue dipped a bit, from $339M to $325M, down 5%... but where is the profit, a.k.a. net income? There is no mention of it in the headline, not in the body. I look all the way down to the tables... and Whoa, baby! PTC lost a whopping $84 million. I can hardly believe it. How can this escape being mentioned? (At least GraphicSpeak noticed.)

I rush to read the transcript of the call, fully expecting the analysts to have flayed PTC management for such a performance. Granted, the executives would not lead with a discussion of the loss; who would want to? But there is no question of it: no where in the whole transcript does the $84M figure come up. Rather, the analyst seem to be a bit upbeat about the company.

I'm thinking PTC has somehow transfixed the audience... maybe served them some Kool Aid. Then, to further my confusion the next day, PTC stock rises.

All my knowledge of finance, or just the basic principles, limited as they are to revenue and profit (which have served me since I had a paper route), all must have been turned on their head. If the analysts (financial whizzes, unlike me) don't have a problem with losing $84M, I have to be doing something wrong.

I must find out why there is no hue and cry over the enormous loss:

Is it because the company still paid a dividend to its investors?

There is a a tax item of $120M that seems to me to have singlehandedly given PTC this huge loss. Was this a one time occurrence, and it is OK to ignore it. Inquiring (non-financial) minds need to know.

Or does it have to do with the $230M PTC paid to acquire Servigistics?

I hope its not, because PTC still has almost $500M in the bank, and they could lose money at this rate for several years before people get worried.

Nov 06, 2012

Dassault chose the opening press reception of its annual US conference and user meeting (formerly Dassault Systemes Customer Conference, or DSSC), to announce Compass, its new in-house print magazine.

Compass is printed in France, available in several languages (including English), and features subjects as far reaching as CEO Bernard Charles' vision, which extends far beyond the mere design of planes, trains, and automobiles. Its debut issue is hardly the nuts-and-bolts user interest stories of Contact magazine (Dassault's old in-house magazine), but is meant to appeal to a "higher" level of reader: those further up the corporate food chain. In its debut issue are departments such as Society, Education, Art... it even has book club recommendations.

If anything, Compass wants to put a focus on 3DEXPERIENCE, the concept which Dassault has been mentioning in just about every corporate communiqué for a several months now.

It's a beautiful magazine. Glossy. Big. It will look great in corporate office lobbies, which I am sure is its intention. It looks like money. Trade press publishers, most trying just to keep the lights on, will be jealous. Vanity press, they'll say. Does anyone read that stuff?

The Compass debut issue opens to Bernard Charles smiling face. Turn the page, and Monica Menghini, executive vp of marketing communications, greets us from her own page. Almost lost in the ensuing fine print is chief editor Michael Marshall.

Michael, who handles customer stories for Dassault, tells me that anyone and everyone who wants it can subscribe; you don't have to be a Dassault customer. Michael tells me of stories he is going to be working on. New technologies. Interesting people. Now I'm jealous.

The magazine features advertising for Dassault partners, including NVIDIA, Lenovo, Wacom, others -- though in the debut issue, the ads were gratis.

Is it any wonder that big companies put out its own magazine? Google does it. So does Bentley, ANSYS. MSC. They are bright, colorful magazines on thick paper. It leaves companies free to create their own marketing vehicles, promote the customers they are proud of, brag of new products and initiatives. They can break free of page limits imposed by trade press and not be subjected to the editors who change the stories -- if they run them at all.

Nov 03, 2012

Scott Harris, one of the founders of SolidWorks -- as well as friend of mine and fellow bike rider -- called to confirm news that had spread like morning wildfire on tweets and blogs (1). He and the other original founders and leaders of SolidWorks have formed a new company.

The company is called Belmont Technology, Inc. It was incorporated yesterday (2). The name serves as a place holder, maybe until the group can figure out what they will produce. Belmont is a town in Massachusetts, a few miles from Winchester, which itself served as a placeholder name until Winchester Designs changed its name to SolidWorks.

The group includes John Hirschtick, John McEleney, Scott Harris, Dave Corcoran, Mike Lauer and Tommy Li. They plan on putting their minds together to develop tools and technologies for designers and engineers, so will be brainstorming ideas. "Not a line of code has been written yet," says Scott.

Scott and I had discussed the need of a truly intuitive design tool a few times over the hundreds of miles we rode together. CAD programs fall short on being really intuitive for design, says Scott. He still sees lots of opportuniy to improve product design tools. Of course, he expects his ideas to be weighed with ideas from others in the group as the fledgling company moves forward.

The group will soon be seeking external funding, however, rather than try to bootstrap it.

Any reaction from Dassault? I ask. Nothing official, though Dassault has been informed. "We have been above board with them," says Scott. One may assume that non-compete clauses have expired.

Scott will be reducing his multiple activities to devote himself full time to this new venture, he says.

Oct 15, 2012

The flight home from Bricsys conference in Amsterdam is barely over the North American continent. I’ve secured a lie-flat seat, but I feel the vexation of Bricsys, and other CAD contenders. I cannot sleep. Autodesk’s lock on the market – what can explain it? But I may be looking down at the answer. America.

Even before the conference, I saw two other great CAD programs. I see a lot of demos, but one of these was a program I had long given up on; when I first saw it 15 years ago, though, I would have bet the house on it. It was dazzling -- fun, even. Somehow it has been sidelined almost to obscurity. Yet, somehow, it had hung on. Two of its best and brightest caught up with me to show a demo of the latest release. Again, I was dazzled. Why are people not buying this software?

What I was seeing on the screen was sometimes awesome. I was focusing really hard, too, because the presenters were heavily accented. The English was very good, but through the accent…

Only then did I realize what a challenge the company really had. They weren’t from America.

Another company showed me a PowerPoint demo. Their software was packed with features. Guaranteed to be compatible, both with data and interface, to AutoCAD. Cheaper than AutoCAD –by far. They had over 300,000 users in their country.

Who knew? Who cares? They weren’t American.

How long did it take Americans to trust foreign cars? Toyota began selling cars in the US in 1957. It took until 1997 for the Toyota Camry to become the #1 car in America. Toyota had the time and the patience. Does Bricsys have that kind of time?

Well, you can’t change your birthplace. But you can change your appearance, the way you present yourself, the people you lead with, your accent.

Is it a cultural bias? Perhaps. We have finally accepted foreign cars, but American CAD is still the best. Like American doctors, our universities… umm… (there’s more, right?). AutoCAD was invented here. So was SolidWorks. And MicroStation, ANSYS... The leading CAD and CAE software is American.

To attempt to analyze our bias towards America would probably just get me in trouble, but it’s safe to say people relate to and are comfortable with others like themselves. We resent intrusion. We don’t let other countries into our “World” Series. Hey, the French hate it when Americans win their Tour de France.

But some reasons are more practical than cultural. What would a Chinese CAD company know about our architectural standards? Or UNF threads? Or GDT invented by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Again, let us take a lesson from SolidWorks, the one and only company born during the Autodesk reign that thrived. SolidWorks was a quintessential American success story. Founders Jon Hirschtick and John McEleney were one of us. Engineers. Buddies. You could walk up to them at SolidWorks World and chat them up, like it was a barbeque. Have a beer.

They were cowboys. One earned a fortune playing blackjack. One was a running back. They were like us. They knew us. You knew, somehow, that their software would also be familiar, comfortable, that nice attention to detail, your details… no surprises, no metric system (unless you wanted it), no help files in Kanji characters. That if you got into real trouble you could call either of them personally… okay, that last part may have been beer-induced.

Meanwhile, Back to Bricsys

I had the pleasure of getting to know Erik de Keyser at the Bricsys conference. Energetic, magnetic, captivating, quite possibly brilliant. American, no. Erik and Bricsys are from Ghent, Belgium. Erik is impressive how he can talk to anyone at any level: to a developer about the programming, to the press about company goals, to users about features. I’m sure Bricsys is popular in Belgium, its headquarters. Belgians would find comfort in Bricsys. But this would be too confining for Erik, whose Napoleonic plans extend beyond Belgium, beyond Europe. He looks over the Atlantic towards America.

In a perfect world, this shouldn’t be a problem; we should look at products on their merits. We should pick our CAD program based on its capability, not the accent of its CEO. I know this is not a problem for readers of this fine blog. I mean the others, the unenlightened, the millions.

So what should a CAD company do? How vexing to have a great product but to be ignored by the major world markets!

One reason for the success of Toyota was to become American. Not by giving up its name, or trying to change its DNA. At some point they must have realized also that Americans like to buy American. They started making cars in the US and now Toyota vies for the #1 spot in the US market.

What can a software company do to Americanize? Some quick thoughts:

Create an American subsidiary, a real office, not a front

Address the customers in American

Emphasize the existing American customers to potential customers

Get American CAD experts to pick up your products and review it

Downplay your origin origin (except if you are offering vacations)

Comb through the program and help find and remove any vestige of foreignness.

Oct 12, 2012

On the long flight from the Bricsys Int'l Conference in Amsterdam, every bit of reading material has been consumed. Plenty of time to develop crazy plans, like how contenders like BricsCAD could upset the reigning heavyweight champion, AutoCAD.

B is for Bulletproof

It must be capable. (See Pt 1, C is for Capable.) But that means nothing when the software is not dependable... bulletproof, even. It must be able to take everything thrown at it and not wince. Customers know that when they go with the market leader, they will be safe; for the others, ut takes only one bullet to be shot down.

Years ago, when I was leading the CAD division of a contender, we went on tour, proud to show our new baby to the world. We had stacked our latest, greatest release with all sorts of features. You'd have to be a fool to pay thousands when we had it all for a couple of hundred bucks.

We got into the office of a major engineering publication. Our product manager was on a roll, going through the litany of cool features; oh, we were on a roll. Until the program crashed.

Seeing the blue screen of death, I tried to distract the editor with some spiel about our company philosophy. The editor was attentive, polite. The demo recovered and completed. But we knew it was over. Neither of us had the courage to open the magazine for the rest of the year.

Making software bulletproof takes commitment. A company has to have excellent quality assurance -- before the software ever gets out the door. After that, it needs to be responsive to whatever users find, and fix it. It's not glamorous work, not like having cool features. And it takes lots of money.

Big companies run endless tests to determine fallibility with large files, ferret out incompatible geometry, untranslated styles, more... and for AutoCAD contenders, the biggest and most important questions may be "How does it work with our third-party applications?" and "Will my LISP routines work?" This is life and death for customers who have spent years with AutoCAD. Getting a program to work like AutoCAD is one thing. Getting program to work with everything that has grown around AutoCAD could be the real challenge.

Bricsys has told us that how much effort it took to match AutoCAD sheetset capability, almost delaying their ship date of BricsCAD 13. Bricsys is trying really hard. Could it just be that little engine that could?

B is Also for Big

Autodesk is a $2B company. My data's safe. Every one uses their products. I won't get fired for recommending them. They are going to be around for awhile.

- Practially every CAD user under the sun

Is Autodesk's size an insurmountable problem? Maybe not. Safety in numbers may be compelling for users and daunting for competitors, but let us take a look at what it means to be big:

In reality, Big is in the eye of the beholder. A CAD company only has to appear Big.

Allow me ro once again use as an example the one company that has risen to market domination during Autodesk's reign. When SolidWorks arrived on the national scene, they gave every indication of being bigger than they were. Though the founders may have been minting CDs in their garages in their jeans sweating out an uncertain future, they showed up in the late 90s in suits at big booths in all the CAD trade shows. Glossy magazine ads furthered the impression of Big. They looked the part.

Customers thought, "Safety, confidence." Like the big bank building on Main Street. You can trust Big. It’s not going anywhere. Your CAD data is safe. Yeah, their stuff did look easier than Pro/E. It was way cheaper. But anyone can do cheap. The company could not be dismissed as a small fly-by-night company. SolidWorks appeared big in all the ways it was perceived by potential customers.

Just as important as what they did was what they didn't do. SolidWorks did not build abig building on Main Street. Getting their name on a giant office building to stroke their egos, impress family and friends? They didn't give themselves huge salaries or buy expensive cars. A least not right away. The big campus was to come much later, after an acquisition by Dassault. They used their money judiciously, building the product, the channel... They looked down the road and realized that it was more important to look big to their potential customers -- not their wives, friends, neighbors.

That was then. But who today goes to trade shows? Who reads magazines? What's a company to do today to look Big?

Be Big on the Web

Just as SolidWorks looked and found real and meaningful ways to look big 15 years ago, so must today's contenders. These days its all about the Web. We are we are immersed in it. Yet, I still see contenders try to make a go of it with tired tradition. No CAD company has found a way to exploit the Web. We all Google for information. We read what our peers are saying on blogs. We Tweet during user meetings. I'm buying a camera, so I'll read three or four reviews on the Web.

I'm not suggesting a Web facade, but a strong presence on the Web. which is easier to establish than constructing a huge office on Main Street, or spending millions on tradeshow booths or on magazine ads. If SolidWorks was starting today, they would have found a way to look big on the Web.

Be Big on the Phone

Answer every call. Don't hide behind your Web site. Give out phone numbers and pick up the phone. Whether it be a customer, developer, or reseller. And make it an American number, or at least employ good English speakers. Nothing smacks of cost-cutting like speaking with "Barry" in Bangalore who is very good only at memorizing a script and little else other than providing lost serial numbers.

Getting back to Bricsys. They can't be big right away. But Bricsys can act big. It is showing many steps in this direction. Having the Int'l Conferenece is, in of itself, a way of being Big. Big CAD companies have annual conferences. Little ones don't.

Oct 09, 2012

Following the Bricsys Int'l Conference in Amsterdam was for me 14 hours on airplanes to get back to San Francisco. The book I read on the flights was less than compelling, the movies were were the onces I had managed to avoid at home, but the wine was flowing. Ah, plenty of time to culture pearls of wisdom.

I must confess to be a bit smitten by Bricsys, the company and its CEO Erik de Keyser. My usual cynicism failed me. But don't worry, it will come back. Already, I am considering Bricsys' chances against Autodesk, the market leader.

Quick Comparison #1: Bricssys' Erik de Kyser in the game with Autodesk's Carl Bass.

The 80/20 Rule. Autodesk has dominated the CAD market for over 20 years. On the motto of 80% of the capability of workstation CAD for 20% of the cost worked so well, we are inclined to say it was easy. It isn't. Witness the wrecks of companies that have tried to do it: Visio, Cadopia... a dozen IntelliCAD-based products. Companies like IMSI, Graebert, Ashlar, Alibre and others still try to match Autodesk’s success, but Autodesk gets bigger. Like pesky flies on a lion, CAD companies seem to be unable to do it any real harm.

SolidWorks. The one exception: SolidWorks. Is that the only CAD company to be launched during AutoCAD's reign that has not only prospered but risen to the top? Its success should be studied, be the stuff of books, like how to get ahead in the CAD world. But even the mighty SolidWorks has its limits. It only addresses mechanical design. Its strength is 3D. Autodesk still owns the rest of the CAD world.

Why did only a few companies make it while everyone else fell by the wayside or relegated to niches? I can only offer my analysis, confined here to simple ABCs – though not in that order.

C is for Capability – and Cost

Quick Comparison #2: Price of AutoCAD vs Bricscad

CAD software must, at the very least, be capable. A general purpose CAD program must be able to handle every aspect of the design of a company’s products. Forget the 80/20 rule. AutoCAD and SolidWorks made it big on the 80/20 rule. It won't work again. In 1985, 80/20 was compelling. PC's were novel. Competition was nonexistent. Since then, companies have continually offered more and more, trying to convert users.

Matching AutoCAD or SolidWorks feature by feature just won't cut it. The bar is high. Offer more than expected. Supersize it. How about a 120/20 rule? We love a love a bargain. Who wouldn’t love a perpetual license for the cost of one year subscription, for example. Or a vertical application for less than the cost of the base product? Offering 80% now would be suicide. You have to offer more to get attention.

The Cost Limbo Will Hurt. But don’t do the limbo on cost. Several companies have plateaued capability, but lowered prices continually or in jerks. It’s not doing their image any good to be seen as overly cheap CAD software.

If I ever need heart surgery (God forbid), I know I can get it in India. I know it will be cheap. But it’s my heart, darnit. What good is my money if my ticker goes? America still has the best doctors and medical schools, right? Likewise, the lifeblood of a company would be its CAD data. The cost of life and death makes the cost of CAD seem piddling. What good is saving a few bucks for the company if that decision makes me lose my job?

The perception of low cost CAD, which can really backfire. Let's say, tempted by the low price, a customer downloads your software. The first glitch and he will uninstall it. It might have crashed, it might have not imported your CAD file 100% accurately, maybe if was annoying in the way it asked for the serial number... whatever. It will be more easily dismissed than adopted. That $29 program will thereafter be referred to as a Piece of Carp. That customer will never look at another offer from you.

The Magic Price. Somewhere between $4,995 (a SolidWorks license) and $99 (Alibre’s suicidal low brief offer), there is sufficient room to operate. Hey, it's just software, right. It can be priced at anything. But do try to sell it a bit more than the cost of the DVD. Remember, to be in it for the long run, you have to have R&D, marketing... and other little minor details.

Bricsys may have hit the right price. Its BricsCAD sells for as low as $420. It has addons and extra capability, but it stays under $1,000. Bricsys seems to be able to not only be able to sustain itself, but also to have prospered.

Oct 04, 2012

Pricing of software has always seemed artificial. It's not like a car, where the sticker price can be justified by the cost of metal, rubber...companies get to sell software at whatever price suits them. They justify the price (sometimes the same as a car) by insisting that it is the only sustainable way, that they do a lot of R&D, customer support...that companies that undercut prices are only cutting their own throats. Don't expect those companies to be around long, they say.

Erik de Keyser, CEO of Bricsys, disagrees. Strongly.

Bricsys sells their software, BricsCAD, a fully featured, general purpose 2D & 3D CAD program for as little as $420. Bricsys has been doing this since 1999.

"We're going to learn about BricsCAD," says Erik, leading off the Bricsys annual conference in Amsterdam. "And have some fun."

Sure enough. There was tour through the Heineken brewery. Tonight there will be a big party. This may be the norm for companies who sell their software for the price of cars. The profit margin is substantial and sufficient for such frolics. But for a company that sells its software for 1/10 the price of its competition?

Though not privy to their books, I noted several outward signs of success -- beyond the perks.

Bricsys broke away from the flailing ITC to do it's own DWG development, able to cover it's own ARX code rewrite.

Expansion, such as with recent acquisition of LEDAS IP for its 2D and 3D technology

Customer support as a company goal.

A strong and well supported developer community, avid developers, several at conference who cited great interactions with BricsCAD developers.

Robust development and steady release cycle, additional features and improvements, such as in just announced V13.

A stated goal to expand vertical applications, including mechanical design and AEC.

No doubt under Erik's leadership, Bricsys has emerged as the predominant non-AutoCAD DWG-based CAD package from among a host of contenders. So close is its likeness to AutoCAD that they report one developer gave an entire presentation with BricsCAD thinking he was using AutoCAD. This, at a fraction of the cost of AutoCAD.

Trained as an architect, Erik de Kyser started Bricsys in 1999. He and creative director Sander Scheiris drove from company HQ in Ghent to meet me for a most delightful lunch at Brussels last year. To meet Erik is to come away impressed with his energy and commitment. Or was it the wine? May be Erik turns on the charm for the press?

"Every year, we all take all the employees on an all expense-paid vacation," says Erik during the brewery tour. "They can take their families." Last year everyone went to Portugal.

Sep 21, 2012

All the heavyweights in the CAE world were lined up in the front of the room, ANSYS, MSC, Dassault, Siemens PLM and others in what was to be a panel Q&A (with Louis Komzsik, Bill Wheeler, Andrew Hintz, Gilles Eggenspieler, Dan'l Pierce, John Twerdok, Ed Ladzinski). I thought there was going to be a battle, and I had my eyes on Autodesk.

Autodesk had just dropped a bomb at NAFEMS North America, annual gathering place of analysts who make a living from stress, fluid, thermal, electromagnetic calculations – if not by hand or calculator, then with estoric and expensive programs whose prerequisites may well be a PhD, as well as years of training and use before true expertise is obtained. In the not so distant past, they alone had access to hulking mainframe computer or had accounts with supercomputer services that charged by the CPU-second. It wasn’t cheap.

Into this annual summit of CAE [computer-aided engineering], hallowed ground for the priests of prediction, Autodesk introduced Simulation 360:

It was cloud-based, so you don't need to have a supercomputer; Autodesk will supply them.

You don’t need to spend tens of thousands of dollars upfront; Autodesk will rent the software.

You don’t have a PhD in engineering? Where have you been, poor fellow? Autodesk has for a couple of years been insisting that just about anyone can use simulation tools – at least the tools that they offer.

I expected the illustrious panel to be preoccupied with the Autodesk’s audacity, or at least shun the CAD vendor. How dare this new kid play with the big boys? The new kid should have got beat up. But the new kid was rich. Autodesk is a $2.5B company.

Guess who had the biggest booth at NAFEMs? Yup, Autodesk. In its shadow, even industry stalwart ANSYS tells me how great it is that Autodesk is here: they are educating the people about the value of analysis.

Money talks. The marketing director of NAFEMS, no doubt buoyed by the money Autodesk has pumped into his conference, dismissed a concern over a CAD user being dangerously ill-equipped to practice CAE as “bogus.” He was a P.E. [professional engineer], sworn to protect the public.

The panelists’ collective lack of concern was obvious as they promoted their own products. How great they were. They talked of accuracy, convergence... they were like big grazing animals who don’t see the predator in their midst.

Any recognition of Autodesk was respectful, bordering on reverential. Autodesk seemed to be bending the CAE community with its will in some kind of mind trick. The force was great. So often I heard CAE vendors talk of “democratization,” a word which I credit Autodesk for creating and a word I can barely pronounce, but one that was rolling off CAE vendors' tongues -- by the very companies Autodesk was going to hurt. Like cattle being led to slaughter, singing in praise of beef.

Autodesk has spent $500M over the last few years acquiring CAE technology. It now bills itself also as a simulaton company. How long before we are all believers?

Sep 18, 2012

Unlike previous SolidWorks media events, we are given less dazzle. Hot topics of “cloud” and “green” are only mentioned when asked about, and then downplayed. Wait... the only cloud mentioned was about balloon clouds used in 2D drawings.

We were treated to a host of enhancements in the core SolidWorks product (though mercifully not all 350 of them), as well as two big new addons for electrical and mold flow. Most conspicuous in its absence was competitor bashing, which seems to have become the norm at press events at other vendors. As CEO Sicot tells us, “It’s not the “SolidWorks Way.”

SolidWorks seems to have the high road all to itself, while traffic snarls below. With a position of market leadership in MCAD, it is (for now) content to allow others to criticize, to stir up trouble, cast fear and doubt. Others brag of SolidWorks users who defect to their brand, I hear from one prominent SolidWorkers that hundreds are doing the opposite, may be too numerous to mention. “We’re just not going to play that game,” he says.

But CEO Sicot let us know at the press event that “half of all sales are from new accounts.” We just shouldn’t expect a press release every time that happens.

Has it always been that way with SolidWorks? It may be in the company’s DNA, if I may use the common marketing parlance. The way it quietly supports noble causes, from Rwanda* to the PMC (raising funds for cancer research) to helping inner city youth to baby incubators made out of old auto parts for the 3rd world. Withour any “Hey, look at me, how good I am.” Would a company like that trash the competition? No, I don’t think so.

SolidWorks is in there somewhere. The Dassault Systemes campus in Waltham MA

In fact, with this event, the SolidWorks way may signal a return to basics, to customer needs and its core expertise. Whereas in previous years, where the company got way ahead of its own users, essentially telling them what was important (clouds), what was good for them (going green), we are hearing about better tools that users are actually asking for.

SolidWorks 2013 introduces new ways to make conic sections, which previously had to be constructed with B-splines. In another example, users of a previous release (SolidWorks 2012) can -–for the first time -- read models from the current release. Dozens of improvemements enfold, including "delighters," which they hope will generate applause at the upcoming SolidWorks World in Orlando. Many changes have to do with 2D drawings. Does it have the glamor of green? The loftiness of clouds? No. But necessary? I think so.

Is this a deliberate move to solidify (pun intended) its user base? Back to basics, a re-focus? A quiet and dignified answer to its harshest and loudest critics?

We’ve all spent a year since the last SolidWorks press event listening to contrary voices. The kernel change will blow your models out of the water. Direct modeling is the answer and history-based is dead. The parade of defecting users. The end is near, their voices rising, in chorus.

SolidWorks stands firm. They respond quietly, with dignity, with numbers. Quarter after quarter of rising sales, almost 2 million users… Not exactly an epitath. But a company that is strong, still a leader, therefore the envy of others.

David Stott, CFO, shows the climb to nearly 2 million users. Granted, 1.4 million are in schools, but still, which CAD company wouldn't want these numbers?

[This article first appears on CAD Insider, and was reprinted with permission.]

Sep 10, 2012

We get that a lot. But it’s usually from the marketing folk. They have to say make over-the-top claims. It’s some kind of law.

But here was technologist, Gian Paulo Bassi, vp of R&D who, despite having joined SolidWorks one year prior, was insisting that SolidWorks 2013 is the best release in 15 years. Was it bluster, over excitement, too many expressos? May be the first big release since you took office is exciting. Should I fault the father of his first born?

If you think the head of R&D for a CAD software company should be a nerd, Gian Paulo quickly dispenses with the stereotype. He made his public debut with SolidWorks at their annual user meeting in February (SolidWorks World 2012). He had only just joined the company, but already called a press conference.

The press had been whipped up in a frenzy from various sources (competitors mostly) about SolidWorks abandoning its longstanding geometry engine (Parasolid) in favor of CATIA's kernel, CGM. Gian Paulo was fending question after question: No, that was not the case, he assured us. He was confident without being brash, smooth without being slippery. It was an admirable blend of knowledge and reassurance that belied his short stint

Now, at the introduction of SolidWorks 2013, he already knew us. If not from SolidWorks World, then from the press dinner the evening before. It was a catered clam bake, and we were getting whole Maine lobsters. (I know… tough life, right?) Gian Paulo polished off three lobsters all by himself. This was no shy CAD executive; many others won’t even have drink around us. Here was a man afraid of neither press nor lobster. He is now legend among us.

A natural in front of a room, he has been given more of a public role -- certainly more than his predecessor, Austin O’Malley. He built his team, appointing a new head of Q&A, and revitalized the beta testing program.

Gian Paulo introduces me to Justin Kidder, promoted from his post in simulation to Q&A director. While the true test of a CAD program in the hands of end-users, the beta program results seem promising. The 4,600 beta downloads actually in use are 30% higher than with last year's SolidWorks 2012 due to a more ambitious outreach to the user community. But the number of reported errors is 60% of what they were for SolidWorks 2012 at the same point in development.

I see Graham Rae, who heads the Beta program (and is a heckuva bike rider) who tells me the hands on time for beta testers is 2 to 3 times that of the previous release.

Though we need to see the reaction of users and customers to SolidWorks 2013 (release date is today, September 10), GP certainly makes a convincing and reassuring case for its success.

Sep 07, 2012

In the race to be everything to everyone, Siemens PLM may be winning. The company known best for NX and Teamcenter is riding high here at the Siemens PLM 2012 Analyst Conference on the shoulders of Siemens AG, the German juggernaut that seems to make just about everything. Maybe not cars or airplanes, but so much of what goes inside them.

I'm listening to a Siemens presentation about its automotive products that include its embedded systems -- those black boxes that your neighborhood mechanic hates but you love because, with their millions of lines of code, your modern marvel of a car beeps as it nears the curb, avoids collisions, parks itself and will soon enough let you read the morning paper while it takes you to work. By itself.

While other CAD vendors (Dassault, PTC in particular) may claim to provide all the software tools an engineer, designer, or machinist may need, Siemens PLM may be alone in providing so many industries with both software and hardware.

In fact, in all the presentations I am hearing at this annual anlayst meeting, hardly any distinction is being made between Siemems PLM and other divisions of Siemens. Siemen PLM's CEO Chuck Grindstaff is mentioning the names of many other divisions, like he has been issued a mandate to play nicely with the other kids.

This gives Siemens PLM a big competitive advantage. Not only can the other divisions be NX and Teamcenter users with their tens of thousands of engineers (I would hope they already are), but more importantly, they can go to many potential customers with a confident swagger. In so many industries, they already walk the walk.

We all know energy is a hot topic. It's also a growing industry. The Siemens side of the sales call may go like this: "Yeah, we do that. Siemens Energy. It's a big division. What do you want, turbines? Gas or steam? Oh, you want renewable energy? Who doesn't these days? We got hydropower... wind. Actually, a whole line of wind turbines. Yes, of course, they are designed with NX."

Or, as CEO Grindstaff put it, "We eat our own cooking." Sure is nice for them to be part of such a big family -- a family in which, now more than ever, the members are looking out for each other.

May 08, 2012

Solid Edgers did mental high fives as Solid Edge gets mentioned on the main stage at the the annual user meeting for Siemens PLM product users, Siemens PLM Connection 2012 this week in Las Vegas.

Chuck Grindstaff, who replaced Tony Affuso as ceo, talks about "big data." He means the volumes of terabytes of large sets of data big enterprises have -- big enterprises like Siemens, a company of such enormous scale that its two-billion-dollar PLM business is but a minor component. Big companies like to deal with other big companies.

Where does that leave Solid Edge? Picking up crumbs, I'm afraid. Its brief mention on the big stage is overwhelmed by big customers and big deals, targets for Teamcenter and NX. Solid Edge really needs to bust out.

May 02, 2012

Following Autodesk is like chasing a jack rabbit. You think it will hop one way but it hops the other.

I have watched Autodesk for about 15 years. I’ve written much about them, their products. I live in its shadow; my neighbors are Autodeskers. All that, I still can’t predict their moves.

Never has this been more obvious than when Trimble came out of nowhere to buy SketchUp from Google. CAD insiders had known SketchUp was on the blocks. We speculated over and came up with the usual suspects. Not one predicted Trimble.

Why did Autodesk not outbid everyone? I would have thought they’d do whatever it took to acquire SketchUp. Autodesk has been actively chasing the maker/inventor/hobbyist market, such as it is. The AEC community may not have jumped on SketchUp to create the built world, but the DIYers sure jumped on it to make whatever whirligig, gizmos, low-riders, furniture, or whatever crazy contraption that was in their head.

It was easy. It was free. It spread like wildfire, reaching and saturating an unintended but huge audience. I attended a Maker Faire south of San Francisco and was amazed at the almost universal adoption of SketchUp. Autodesk noticed, too, and they were not about to let this go unanswered. With great fanfare they came out with 123D. They were chasing the same audience, but devised a new product to do so. And so spent millions.

123D is free, like SketchUp. But it takes more to convert users than throwing around free software. Think children from their mothers. SketchUp already had its faithful adherents. Lots and lots of them. This was clearly evident in its 3D Warehouse, a vast library of models, produced over the years -- all available for free.

One time, I had to make a factory layout. Let’s see, should I make each machine in 123D, even if was free and easy to use (supposedly)? Or should I download models from the SketchUp library? I found Bridgeports, lathes, drill presses, tables, even a water jet cutter in the SketchUp library. In less than one hour, I had a reasonable attempt at a factory layout. In fact, every tool and machine I needed was there.

How deep was this library? Out of curiosity, I looked for Adirondack chairs. There were dozens of Adirondack chair designs. Thousands of people had been at this for years. SketchUp had – without trying – gained an incredible head start into a market that Autodesk was drooling for publicly.

So, if I were Autodesk, I would wonder: do I spend millions on developing and marketing -- and years to try to lure customers away from a product they willingly chose, invested time to learn, may be even love? Spend more millions on a Website [www.instructables.com] that purportedly has the demographics of makers/DIYers, and end up with picklers and cupcake makers?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to just buy the product everyone is already using? Don’t ask me. I can never get it right.

Mar 27, 2012

The conference here in Troy, Michigan was supposed to be about the use of parametric-shaped geometry, but the lasting image for me may be of the pig's head. Severed, bloody, stuffed in plastic.

It was supposed to be appropriate for what it was resting on, a artsy butchers block. Zoe Coombes, founder of Cmmnwlth Studio, knows how to get attention. We were stunned into silence.

Only much later at dinner, one of us deemed it vaguely pornographic, someone else objected to her use of the word "orgasm," yet another deplored her use of Autodesk Mudbox. But all of us remembered her. Zoe went on to discuss the return she is seeing among the city folk to basics (her furniture studio is in New York city), on the verge of condeming plastics, and so on.

Only when my brain was able to release the image did I realize Zoe was here because some of her designs, such as the butcher block, rely on the complex shapes created by tools used by generative component practioners, like Rhino.

The Smart Geometry conference is like that: a variety of topics, sometimes dead relevant to its name, other times not, but often arousing. Right now I am listening to a painter and simultaneously seeing a clip of Robin Williams with a butterfly. Hmm... the connection is not apparent immediately. But I do appreciate the bamboo bicycle, as presentations about material science and materials being the theme of this years conference.

Why bamboo for a bike? According to Dr Hull, head of the material science at Rensaeller Polytechnic Institute (host of SG20112), bamboo can absorb the shock and vibration better than conventional materials. Metal and carbon fiber are totally beat up bike racers, for example those who race the cobblestones of the famed Spring Classic, Paris-Roubaix.

Mar 26, 2012

Like so many of our Midwest cities, Toledo, Ohio, was once a manufacturing center. It used to be called the "Glass Capital of the World," according to the city's official site.

Toledo wanted to pay homage to that industry and build an addition to its Museum of Art. There was only one problem: most of that industry had gone away. Its factories shuttered, its workers laid off. Undeterred, the city of Toledo went to China -- the country responsible for undercutting and usurping so many American industries -- to create the glass panels. If there was any shame in having lost to the world's labor bully and then have to suck up to them, it must certainly have been overcome. The $30 million dollar Glass Pavilion opened in 2006.

I'm hearing all about this from Kiel Moe, assistant professor of architectural technology at Harvard. He has included the Glass Pavillion in his book, Integrated Design in Contemporary Architecture. Professor Moe tells us that Toledo even imported the engineering: the glass panels were manufactured in Germany. We see the tortuous route the glass took as it circumnavigated the globe. If you have ever broken a plate transporting it from the sink to the dishwasher, you must marvel at the journey of the Toledo museum glass.

I'm sure the laid-off factory workers and engineers in and around Toledo will have lots of time to visit the Toledo Museum's beautiful Glass Pavilion.

Nov 29, 2011

Part 1One might think Autodesk would be content in hosting what is by far the biggest CAD gathering in the world, but it's not. It is inflating the numbers: in addition to the 8,000+ that are expected to be here, Autodesk is also counting those that are attending "virtually," as if that matters. So the number being bandied about is in the hundreds of thousands.

IMHO, there is no substitute for being here. If I was attending "virtually," I would also be doing my regular job, answering emails, shopping on Amazon.com, or a half dozen other bad habits I have picked up on my way to ADHD -- none of which would have put in in good standing as a student or careful attentive listener.

There's 95 of us from the media, a category that increasingly includes bloggers, international press, some of whom represent titles that have little to do with CAD. We have been corralled into a large room a and are being treated to one presentation after another by Autodesk VPs. Carl Bass, CEO, will be the the dessert.

Part 2: 10 Billion Mobile Computers

Autodesk wasted no time in declaring its desire for the consumer market. Only a few minutes into the media presentation, VP Chris Bradshaw, who is prone to reminding us of the computing power of his iPhone eclipses the computers of my youth, went on to say the half of us in the room who are now on iPads were representative of the world at large. He sees the rush to mobile computing not abating until there are 10 billion of these devices. Never mind there are only(!) 7 billion people on the earth. That just means that we'll all have more than one. As proof, he asks the assembled media how many of us had more than one mobile computer, meaning a laptop, tablet PC (like iPad) or smart phone? Most of us were guilty as charged.

And on these mobile devices will be many DIYers, hobbyists, artists... in other words, non-professionals. Non-designers. Non-architects. Non-engineers.

Part 3: And Now a Word From Our Conscience

The mad rush to put professional tools in the hands of non-professionals was given a face and a voice Monday afternoon when Autodesk CEO Carl Bass excitedly told of an inventor who flew his "aerocopter" to a height of 3,000 ft. "I don't even know if this guy was an engineer," says Carl, who was on the panel of judges for the contest in which this device was featured.

Clearly, Autodesk wants to empower individuals with software. It is making software available to all who want it, a lot of it is free or cheap, a lot of it runs on cheap tablet PCs. It's a way to reach way to reach people who may never have been Autodesk customers before. I get that.

But it make engineers like me cringe. If you are a Professional Engineer, you have even sworn to protect the public. But how do you protect the public when you are not even in the design process? When the inventor has the tools to design an aero copter and the tools to build it, how do you protect the public from itself?

Carl admires the inventor who risks his own life to commandeer this aerocopter. Should such endeavors be regulated? Carl does not think so. He's a Libertarian. I am reminded of the Darwin Awards, in which someone rigged his lawnchair to dozens of balloons and tried to lower himself down to earth by shooting the balloons with a BB gun.

Sep 08, 2011

If you are not a leader in the CAD market, then you probably perceive the world as not fair. In a perfect world, products are picked on their merits. And it used to be that every so often, products would be reevaluated, compared to their competition. And so, in a perfect world, CAD operators would be guaranteed the best tools. Incumbency would be devalued.

Certainly, we do this with our politicians. With each election, the incumbents are evaluated against the challengers, and if found wanting, they are shown the door.

For products like SpaceClaim, who just know they are better than the market leaders, a lack of fair evaluation has them tearing out their hair. What do you do when most of the seats are already taken? When new customers nowadays follow the leader, like sheep? They could hope for a leader to emerge from somewhere, someone who has kwowledge, wisdom, and who is beyond rapproach, who would show the way, point them to the rightful choice....

Wait, I was dreaming again. Back to reality. Without a leader, a CAD Olympics might help deter...

Oh, don’t get me started. I imagine non-leaders in the CAD industry gathering to cry in their beers as they size up the unfair successes:

“Autodesk just rode the PC wave with AutoCAD.”

“SolidWorks only had to compete against Pro/E.”

But each lament ignores the marketing skills that current leaders used to arrive at their vaunted spots. Autodesk rose to become a billion-dollar company, but it was not with brilliant technology. To us in the press, all we saw was marketing, marketing and more marketing. For all we knew, a there might be a handful of programmers toiled in the bowels of the company. Their existence was mere rumor. SolidWorks may have paled next to Pro/E technically but that was a low hurdle for the marketing genius of John McEleney, its first VP of marketing who later become its CEO.

“But things were diffferen then,” I can hear the contenders claim. “All SolidWorks had to do was swing a couple of magazines, go to a couple of trade shows.”

Yes, back then there were only a few influential CAD magazines. At one time, users looking for someone to believe could have believed in them. And people went shopping at tradeshows. But both venues have been marginalized by the Web. Instead of a fearless leader, we have many loud voices, some knowledgeable, some credible… others, not so much. And new voices are heard every day.

The old guard had better get off their barstools, and figure this one out. Because the next AutoCAD or SolidWorks will come from someone who can figure this out, and harness the potential of the social media.

Aug 17, 2011

In a deal that may largely go unnoticed by CAD insiders, Autodesk’s acquired Instructables on Aug 1. But this raises significant concerns about independence of online communities.

Autodesk as we all know, makes design software, AutoCAD, Revit, Inventor…. The list goes on. Most of it is dedicated to professionals: architects, designers, engineers, and the like.

Recent initiatives, however, reveal a yearning for the consumer market. Products such as Photofly (a runaway success if only Autodesk would focus on it) can create 3D models from digital camera photos. Its recently introduced 123D -- free software intended for makers/DIYers/inventors -- is another example.

But as SketchUp seems to have quite a hold on that community, and so Autodesk needed to provide a little persuasion. An ordinary company may have just bought some ad space on popular web sites. Instructables is once of them, I think, catering to people who make all sorts of things. But ordinary companies don’t have a billion in the bank. Autodesk just up and bought the entire Instructables business.

Who cares? Well, maybe all the people who counted on Instructables to get advice will care.

A while ago, someone posted on Instructables the following question “What [CAD] software is best?” Another member recommended TurboCAD. It just so happens that TurboCAD is competitive to AutoCAD LT, an Autodesk product. I wonder how much longer such answers will be tolerated. I’m sure the official answer (from Autodesk) would proclaim to guarantee independence. Even if there is a Santa Claus and the Instructables does manage to maintain true independence, who will believe it?

Maybe Instructables users can continue to trust how to pickle your okra… Yeah, that’s right. "Pickling Okra" is one of the most popular instructions on the site. So is how to make breakfast nachos, a water balloon launcher, potato print underwear…

What was Autodesk thinking? Technology even of the consumer kind appears to be included as an afterthought on the Instructables site. The lone CAD question was way-old, and it wasn’t getting a lot of attention. Subjects listed are Food, Living, Art, Beauty, Cake Decorating….

In other words: not a whole lot of stuff Autodesk software can help with. Or is Autodesk is about to create AutoCAKE?

It's probably best for my sanity to not second-guess how other companies spend their money. The amount of money that changed hands in the acquisition (no one is saying how much) may have been a lot for the founders of Instructables, but Autodesk does not even consider it worth reporting. It may have been a whim.

A more sensible approach would have been to buy up a good portion of the ad space from Instructables. At least Instructables could still have insisted they were like every other ad-supported media site with a church/state separation between editorial and advertising.